1

The Philomathean Society of

The University of Pennsylvania

A Sesquicentennial History

2

Acknowledgement

This historical commentary is more than the product of an isolated group of

Philomatheans laboring under a hot summer sun and the efforts of a latter-day editor who

recovered their work, corrected historical, stylistic, and typographical errors, contributing his

own labor to theirs in an effort to produce an accurate and engaging history. Rather, it is the

work of all those who have been members of the Society and who have lived the history which

we have had the privilege to record as faithfully as possible.

During the two summers preceding the sesquicentennial year, the minute books of the

Society from 1913 to the 1963 were synthesized, read, and complied into a coherent history. The

History Committee conducted dozens of interviews with Philomathean Alumni and gradually

developed the framework for a coherent history celebrating the Society’s one-hundred-fiftieth

anniversary. Scores of other senior members aided in this effort, conducting supplementary

interviews and corresponding with the Junior Membership, whose replies provided valuable

corroboration to the minutes. The raw data that the History Committee had at its disposal was

enormous. During the summer of 1964, the writers attempted to capture the essence of this

material. Nearly half-century later, their successor discovered their work in his progress toward

producing his own history of the Philomathean Society and decided that rather than writing a

rival work, he would combine the research that he had accumulated with the drafts and outlines

produced by his predecessors.

The History Committee was fortunate in being able to call on senior members E. Sculley

Bradley, Murray Eisenberg and Charles F. Ludwig for editorial assistance. Draft upon draft was

read and reread. Corrections were made and then the process would begin again. Junior members

Marcey Belfer, Miriam Kotzin, Ralph Plotkin and Arthur Shapiro worked with the Committee in

gathering, sorting and typing information for the alumni listings. Special mention goes to Donald

Boyle of the University of Pennsylvania Printing Office for his infinite patience with our

ignorance of his profession. To all of the above, the History Committee owes its most grateful

thanks.

This project has been an exclusively Philomathean undertaking, emerging from a desire

to celebrate the Society’s sesquicentennial and revived nearly fifty years later. Yet, it could never

have been realized without the moral support of Robert Y. Longley, Dean of Men, and Charles

3

Babcock, Acting Dean of the College.

The History Committee has worked as a group and as the sum of individual efforts. Alan

Oslick worked on the history up to 1943, and Richard Golden, the Introduction and the section

on the post-War period. David Geenwald and Neil Jokelson served in general editorial capacities

and have attempted to weave an integrated structure. To this end, their editor, Andrew Kincaid,

in compiling an updated edition for the bicentennial, maintained their original voice wherever

possible, although certain revisions were unavoidable in an effort to assure the factual accuracy

of the history as well as ensure that the work is as cohesive as possible.

The Committee apologizes for the numerous sins of omission and commission present in

the directories. It can excuse the errors only on grounds of time limitations, difficulty of

communication with the widespread alumni and natural lapses of memory over the years. The

Alumni Directory includes all alumni before the class of 1914 who are, to the Committee's

knowledge, alive. As many alumni as possible have been included beginning with that class. The

list of Moderators during the early forties is subject to error because of inadequate records.

The Committee and their editor take full responsibility for any deficiencies in the following

pages. That which is creditable belongs to the entire Society, for it is that body which has given

us the inspiration, as it has done for its members throughout the past one hundred-fifty years.

HISTORY COMMITTEE

Alan D. Oslick (C '65), Chairman Richard W. Golden (C '67)

David. Greenwald (C '66) Neil Eric Jokelson (Wh '65), ex officio Andrew Kincaid (C'10) Editor, Compiler

October 2, 1964 August 11, 2009

4

Introduction

"It is now just half a century since the then senior class of this University entertained the

proposition and carried it through to form a society, the objects of which should be congenial

with and promotive of the studies prosecuted in the classes. It was to be for mental, what the old

gymnasium was for bodily strength, an arena for mutual improvement, where the precaution of

secrecy was rather a shield for the diffident, and the encouragement of retiring merit, too often

unconscious of its capacity (by its tendency to isolation). After some informal meetings and

conferences the subject was submitted to the Provost for approval, and the organization and

constitution completed under the title of 'The Philomathean Society of the University of

Pennsylvania.'"

These were the words of the Philomathean Society's first Moderator, Christian F. Crusé,

in 1863, on the occasion of the Society's fiftieth anniversary. The Society’s first meeting was

held on October 2, 1813, and the framed constituting declaration signed by the thirteen charter

members on that date still proudly hangs on the wall of the Society's meeting room. This

established as the Society’s governing purpose, the promotion of “…our improvement in

Learning, and likewise more firmly establish the reputation of the University…” The Board of

Trustees of the University approved the establishment of the Society on November 23, 1813,

formalizing what had already been a reality for over a month. Upon the Board's order, the

Society was allotted a large hall and two adjoining rooms in the building that had been

constructed and designed for the use of President of the United States, but was given to the

University when the national capital moved to Washington, having never been occupied by a

sitting president.

In broad outline, the Philo of 1813 and of 1964 are spiritually the same. Traditions have

changed slowly, if at all, and the now-Reverend Crusé would feel perfectly at home during one

of today's meetings, recognizing its basic forms and institutions. The Society meets formally in

its quarters eight Friday evenings each semester, generally on alternating weeks, as scheduling

permits. The Literary Exercises are the foci of the meetings, and provide a venue for members to

share original insight on research and composition, allowing a venue in which to receive

criticism and commentary from their peers. This, then, can be seen as a response to the perceived

inadequacies of the University at the time, as members sought an external forum in which to

have their work evaluated as the formal venues did not satisfy their appetite for critical

5

engagement. Each meeting, the Moderator appoints a different member to serve as the President

of the Literary Exercises and thus serve as the chair for this portion of the evening; the

responsibility is relatively minor and is often conferred upon younger members. Upon

appointment, the President in turn designates one member as the Critic of the Exercise, who,

upon conclusion of the program, delivers a formal critique of the material presented,

commenting on form as well as content. The Philomathean Constitution is then read for three

minutes to ensure that the members retain a working knowledge of the document, and the

"Review" of the previous meeting follows. It is usually satiric and can take any form the

reviewer wishes, including prose, poetry or even, on occasion, mathematical formulae. These

reviews have been collected and written into bound volumes since the 1820s.

After the Review, the program arranged by the Literary Exercises Committee and

generated by a Junior Member is presented. It might consist of an Oxford style debate on the

topic "Resolved, That chivalry is dead," a reading of Under Milkwood, a live demonstration of a

rat's reaction to artificial cranial stimuli, or an annotated musical program on Beethoven's Fourth

Symphony or Charlie Parker. Most often, however, the Literary Exercises center upon prepared

expository or analytical papers, although topic is entirely a matter of interest and preference. The

diversity of topics presented and discussed reflects the variety of interests of the members,

including, classical Marxism, Abstract Expressionism, characterization in Anna Karenina, social

and work patterns in a garment shop, St. Teresa and the Golden Age of Spanish Literature, the

dating of Easter, Arab-Israeli relations, the poetry of Catullus, the chemical origin of life, and

Chinese phonetics. Hence, the diversity of the Literary Exercises presented mirrors the diversity

of interests exhibited by the membership, allowing each to benefit from the expertise and study

of every other member, enhancing and supplementing the formal learning at the University, thus

fulfilling its purpose. The earnest discussion which inevitably followed the formal, prepared

portion of the presentation ended neither with the adjournment of the meeting, nor with the

Moderator's extinguishing the lights as he locked the doors behind him, but nearly always

continued into the bleary hours of the morning at some campus restaurant.

Preceding the lit ex is the business section of the meeting. A typical business meeting

might last several hours while members discuss and argue the selection of an Annual Orator,

methods of raising money to support a publication, the philosophy of selecting books for the

Society's library, the correct parliamentary procedure to be followed, and, paradoxically, why the

6

business section of meetings are so long. Though many members often objected to these long

business meetings, they objected more vehemently when the Cabinet implemented a plan or

course of action without fully discussing the details on the floor. The meetings followed a

modified parliamentary procedure and obeyed a relatively strict standard of decorum; members

stood while speaking and addressed each other formally by last names and the relevant

honorifics. To increase the sense of formal debate, the seating was arranged into a ring along the

outer walls of the meeting room, so that the members of the society naturally faced each other

during new business and did not have to crane their necks with every exchange, swiveling to see

who had spoken.

The Moderator is the Society's chief officer. His responsibility is to preside at the

meetings and to ensure the maintenance of the Society's standards and the observance of its

traditions. He must familiarize himself with every Society activity and successfully administer

all of its programs, although in this latter capacity he has the support of the Chairmen of the

respective committees. It is his duty to maintain satisfactory relations with the faculty,

administration, and student body, ensuring that the Society maintains its position of esteem

within the institution. In essence, he is public face of the Philomathean Society, the head of the

body corporate that elected him. It is his duty to appoint committees, manage the affairs of the

Society, and deliver an inaugural address setting forth his policies and soliciting the help of his

fellow members. The Cabinet, his advisors and the officers elected to take charge of various

aspects of society life, is composed of the six other members. While presiding, he sits on an

elevated platform behind an enclosed, wooden podium and armed with a wooden gavel and a

square marble block that was once part of the President's Mansion that had served as home to the

University prior to relocating to West Philadelphia.

The Censores Morum flank the Moderator on either side and the Scriba sits at a desk

directly in front of their podium. These four officers are clad in traditional black academic

regalia at the Society’s expense. At the beginning of a meeting, or when returning from a recess,

the Scriba will notify the society by ringing a bell throughout the halls, shepherding the members

into the meeting room, whereupon he will join the Moderator and Censores Morum at the door

and enter as part of their procession while the membership stands until the Moderator has taken

his seat. Traditionally, the main function of the Censores Morum has been to maintain the

decorum of the meeting by censoring the conduct of the members, including the Moderator,

7

entering fines and credits into small notebooks kept for this purpose to be tallied and collected at

the end of the meetings. In addition, the First and Second Censors serve as the Chairman and

Vice Chairman, respectively, of the Membership Committee and thus are charged with matters

of recruitment. The meeting minutes are written by the Scriba into large, leather bound volumes

which eventually find their place in the Society's archives where they remain accessible to all

members. With the exception of several gaps, especially during and immediately following the

Second World War, the Society has complete records of meeting minutes dating back to its

founding in 1813.

In addition the aforementioned officers, the Society elects a Recorder, Treasurer and

Librarian to aid in the successful and efficient running of the Society. The Recorder's primary

function is the care of the Recorder's Roll into which each member writes his name upon

initiation. This roll is continuous from 1813, excepting a few years around World War II, during

which the society was not only nomadic, but also barely existent, having been evicted from its

temporary quarters in Houston Hall by the United States Navy for an officer training program.

The Recorder is also responsible for communications with alumni, and is in charge of the

maintenance of the Society's archives. The duties of the Treasurer and Librarian are self-

explanatory, but nonetheless critical to the functioning of the Society.

Philo also maintained a strong sense of tradition in its activities, including the Annual

Oration, the Banquet and Commencement Exercises, and the Bowl Oration. The Annual Oration

is an address delivered toward the end of the spring semester by an outstanding author or scholar

as a service to the intellectual community surrounding the University. The Banquet and

Commencement Exercises are held after the last meeting of the spring semester and are the

Society's official farewell to graduating members, a time where graduating members can

reminisce with one another as a group before commencement. Following a banquet marked by

innumerable toasts and glasses of wine, the graduates receive Philo's ancient, Latin diploma and

pass from Junior to Senior membership, the current Moderator is presented a gold key bearing

the emblem of the Society, and a prominent alumnus delivers an address and members of the

graduating class present the Latin Oration, an original English Poem, and the Valedictory.

The process of application and acceptance to membership is long and exhaustive. To gain

the privilege of participating in the Society's activities, a student must demonstrate his

qualifications for membership by speaking briefly before the Society on a topic of his choosing,

8

submitting a creative or critical paper, generally about five hundred words in length, and

discussing his ideas and interests in an interview with the Membership Committee. New

members are selected from those who have completed this procedure only after exhaustive and

thorough discussion by the entire membership, constituted as a Committee of the Whole and

presided over by the First Censor as Chair of the Membership Committee. The Society's

Constitution dictates that there may be a maximum of fifty junior members at any given time,

with the qualifying stipulation that, at most, sixteen of those members be women. This limit,

while seemingly arbitrary, has been found to be optimal over the years, permitting close personal

contact among the members and effective debate at the meetings, while providing sufficient

numbers to administer Society projects successfully. That said, however, a simple vote to

overturn or ignore this provision may be employed to expand the membership cap so as to elect

more than the constitutionally dictated allotment.

Upon initiation into the Society, new members receive a Latin certificate of membership,

a lapel rosette bearing the Society's emblem, and a key to the quarters. The initiate also signs his

name to the Recorder's Roll during a traditional candle-lit ceremony, well remembered for the

Censor's exclamation "Adsumus" which admits him to Philomathean Hall.

Although the Society consists mostly of undergraduates, a limited number of graduate

students may be accepted to Special membership by following the same application procedure,

though, officially, they are granted membership by the Cabinet, not the Committee of the Whole.

Interestingly, Philo is the only undergraduate student organization at the University retaining this

privilege.

These members are fifty very distinct individuals and Philo expresses the personalities of

its current members in the nature of debate, the types of events and activities held, and the

general tenor of Society life. The membership is divided relatively equally among the four

classes and, moreover, the members come from all over the United States, including several

members from foreign nations. All of the undergraduate schools are represented in Philo, and

most expect to continue their education beyond their bachelor's degree.

During its first forty-three years, the Society concentrated primarily on internal programs

designed to promote the learning of its own members, rather than the University as a whole,

although it did publish several short-lived magazines such as the University Magazine. One such

internal program to which the members devoted much time and money was the building of a

9

library of thousands of volumes which, in reality, served as the library of the University until the

last decades of the nineteenth century when the Furness library was completed and the

University’s collection surpassed the Society’s. Furthermore, Philo has exerted influence in the

University curriculum, including several efforts and campaigns that have led to the foundation of

entire departments. Vice Provost and historian Roy F. Nichols related this example in an address

delivered on October 6, 1956 upon the dedication of the present Philomathean Hall.

"It was in the hall of Philomathean that I like to think that the idea of teaching American

history at the University was born. On November 1, 1838, a distinguished lawyer from the

community, William Bradford Reed, delivered an oration in which he urged the study and

teaching of American history. Interestingly enough, sixteen years later he became the first one to

teach American history at the University. This was the first fruit on an idea presented to

Philomathean."

Further, in 1856, a project was undertaken which brought the Society international

recognition. Historian and senior member Edward P. Cheyney relates the incident in his History

of the University of Pennsylvania, 1740-1940 (pages 248-249).

"A member procured and presented to the Society in 1856 a plaster cast of the well-

known monument in the British Museum with its trilingual inscription in Hieroglyphics,

Demotic, and Greek (the Rosetta Stone). It had lately attracted much attention and been

described and translated by the French scholar Champollion. A little group of interested

members of ‘Philo’… had themselves appointed a committee to report upon it. With what one of

them afterwards called 'the happy temerity of youth and inexperience,' and feeling 'that nothing

possible to man ought to trouble a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and of the

Philomathean Society, by the time they had graduated, two years later, they had produced the

report in two successive editions, in book form. Printed in colors by a lithographic process, with

appropriate illustration and ornament, it gave a textual reproduction of the inscription in its three

languages, collated with the Lepsian text of the corresponding inscription on the wall of the

temple at Philae.”

"It was a work of genuine scholarship, of ingenuity, boldness, industry, and good taste. It

drew a complimentary letter from Baron von Humboldt, who was doubtless unaware of the

youth and lack of training, as he was certainly unfamiliar with American learning, of the

producers of what he calls 'the first essay at independent investigation offered by the litterateurs

10

of the New Continent.' The two editions of the Report were soon exhausted and have long since

become rarities sought for by librarians." This work was the first completely accurate translation

of the Rosetta Stone, and it deciphered hieroglyphic characters never previously defined.”

Similarly, in 1896, a committee was appointed to translate the work De Mysteriis of Andocides.

The committee later published its comprehensive translation and was subsequently commended

by Professor Lamberton, the head of the Department of Greek.

In 1873, the University and the Society moved to West Philadelphia. A fourth floor was

built on College Hall especially for the Philomathean Society and its rival, the Zelosophic

Society, founded in 1829. This provision was secured in order to ensure that Philo and Zelo

would indeed move along with the University from their accommodations in the Presidential

Mansion. Each organization had two spacious rooms for its separate use along with locks to

ensure privacy.

In the fall of 1875, Philo founded the first college publication at Pennsylvania which had

for its sole object news of student interest. The University Magazine was published monthly and

reflected a need, as determined by Philo, for an outlet devoted to students in which

undergraduates could express their opinions and keep apprised of University news. The

magazine ran from 1875 until 1885, whereupon it merged with the Pennsylvanian. This move

was in part a response to the growing sentiment at Penn that Philo, an organization of barely fifty

members should not control the primary media organ of a University with nearly one thousand

undergraduates. With this in mind, Philo relinquished control and consented to the merger,

though Philo ensured that it would maintain an editorial presence on the board of the

Pennsylvanian. The Society's Moderator, George Wharton Pepper, became the first editor-in-

chief of the Pennsylvanian, and many Philo members have thereafter held that and other editorial

posts on the Pennsylvanian, and its successor, the Daily Pennsylvanian.

Throughout the first century of its existence, Philo remained almost exclusively a

debating society. Certainly, the Society engaged in other activities, but formal, competitive

debate dominated Society life, holding a preeminence that it never would again. Predictably,

Philo's principal contender and adversary was the Zelosophic Society, and the annual Philo-Zelo

Debate often attracted thousands of spectators from the general public in the Musical Fund hall

and other forums of Philadelphia. Debates often focused on controversial issues of the day,

including women’s suffrage, the direct election of senators, and the adoption of a federal income

11

tax. One such illustrative example is recorded in the Philomathean archives, indicating that just

prior to the Civil War, a Moderator placed two pistols on the lectern, placed his palm between

them, leaned over and announced, "Gentlemen, tonight we shall debate slavery!" This anecdote,

though perhaps apocryphal, indicates the degree to which debate figured into Society life and the

timbre of these contests.

Philo also sparred with other literary and debating societies of other colleges from New

York to North Carolina, engaging in the flourishing culture of American literary societies that, at

the time, pervaded American universities. In l894, the Society joined with the teams of other

institutions to establish the first "Intercollegiate Debate Union" in the United States. As in the

case of the student newspaper, the Society again yielded its monopoly position and organized the

University Debate Council; open to all undergraduate students, that same year. Hence, Philo

influenced and contributed to University life by establishing affiliated organizations, rather than

dominating it directly, under the aegis of the Society itself.

Dramatic productions represent another major Philomathean activity. The earliest such

production was the Greek Play of 1886 presented by the Philomathean and Zelosophic Societies

in Philadelphia's Academy of Music, and subsequently published in book form. This tradition

continued even after the schisms with the Mask and Wig Club and the Pennsylvania Players,

both of which originated from Philomathean impetus and personnel. This, then, indicates a

pattern throughout Philomathean history, evinced also in the aforementioned cases of the

University Debate Council and Pennsylvanian, in which Philos, under the auspices of the

society, begin to undertake an enterprise, and, having become successful, sever official ties to the

Society, spawning entirely new student organizations. Hence, even though Philo became

apparently and paradoxically less directly central to student life as it became more successful, it

still figured prominently in the affairs of the general student population.

The Society's Centennial History contains a spirited account of the later development of

dramatic activity, explaining that “Dramatic productions are Philo's most recently instituted form

of activity. The Philo plays owe their, existence to two factors which have many times been

active in the Society. One is lack of funds which has always made the members work when all

else has failed, while the other is that which Philo alone of all the organized groups at the

University seems to foster for its own sake: a love of old things. It was not the purpose of the

Society to compete with that Dramatic Organization at the University whose productions are

12

famous throughout the college world and whose unbroken line of success has put Pennsylvania

far in advance of every other college in the field of dramatic productions. Even hostile critics are

forced to acknowledge the superiority of the Mask and Wig Play. But the Mask and Wig Club

has confined itself to the production of comic opera and left to other hands the task of reviving

the good things of former years. In 1904 the Ben Greet Company came to the University and

gave some of its famous Shakespearean plays in the Botanical Gardens of the University. This

was done under the joint auspices of the Zelosophic and Philomathean Societies.”

“...The representation by a professional company in Philadelphia of that noble morality

play of the fifteenth century, Everyman, convinced the members that old plays would be

favorably received by a modern audience. Professor Clarence G. Child, of the English

Department, had edited for publication "The Second Shepherd's Play," an interlude from the

Towneley Cycle; he now prepared an acting version and it was submitted to the Play Committee.

So it happened that 'The Second Shepherd's Play' was produced upon the natural stage in the

Botanical Gardens by members of the Philomathean Society. The effort was so well received that

an extra performance outside the University had to be arranged, and after all bills were paid, a

sufficient surplus remained to be laid aside for a more ambitious undertaking the following

year.”

“In 1909 the committee in charge decided not to repeat the simple religious drama but to

give some one of the many famous compositions of the Elizabethan period. '... the boocke of

Harey Porter called the two angrey wemen of Abengton' (as it is called in Henslowe's Diary)

...was likewise so successful financially that the Society's rooms were completely refurnished

and the bare walls covered with the grime of thirty-five years were at last painted. The remainder

of the money was placed in the 'Philomathean Play Fund,' from which no money can be drawn

save for financing Philo plays. Two members of the Society are annually elected trustees to see

that the surplus of one year's play is used to make up any deficit which may occur the following

year.”

"The next play was given in 1911, and in that year 'The Pleasant Comedy of Mucedorous,'

an Elizabethan drama attributed to Thomas Lodge, was presented by the Society on the outdoor

stage. In 1912, Thomas Dekkar's 'The Shoemaker's Holiday,' a lively comedy of life in medieval

London, was given, and required so large a cast that nearly half of the Society took part."

"With all the advantages of an outdoor play, one great drawback existed, which so

13

repeatedly caused trouble that a change was necessary. This drawback was the weather. Rain had

so often necessitated postponements that the play committee resolved to forsake the Botanical

Gardens and go to one of the down-town theatres. The South Broad Street Theatre was chosen as

the scene of Philo's tremendous success in 1913. Ben Jonson's masterpiece, 'The Alchemist,' was

given by a company of Philomatheans in which it seemed as though every man's part had been

written for him. Some member was found to be a faithful counterpart of each character, and the

result brought from Professor Felix E. Schelling, our greatest authority on the Elizabethan drama,

the comment that it was the least amateurish play he had ever seen given by amateurs. "...'Dol’ so

cleverly concealed his sex that the play was more than half over when a lady in the audience in

utter surprise exclaimed, 'Why, it's a boy!' "

To commemorate its one hundredth anniversary in 1913, the Society gave an elaborate

celebration under the direction of moderator Randolph G. Adams. On December 13, 1913, a

formal meeting attended by Junior and Senior members and guests was held in Houston Hall.

Diplomas of honorary membership were conferred on the provost and five prominent professors.

Professor of History Edward P. Cheyney delivered a historical summary of Philo's first hundred

years. After the ceremonies, the meeting adjourned to Philomathean Hall, where refreshments

were served and the Society's "valuable and interesting relics were exhibited” alongside framed

pictures of the Society’s former moderators.

Additionally, a history of the first hundred years was written and printed. It contained a

collection of speeches of historical interest, lists of alumni and Moderators, winners of Society

prizes and similar information of interest to Philomatheans. Professor Cheyney's speech was

included, as was a comparable one by Reverend Crusé on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary.

The volume went on sale December 13, 1913, under the title A History of the Philomathean

Society of the University of Pennsylvania.

University Setting 1914 – 1928

The contrast between the University in 1914 and today is striking, particularly to alumni

who can compare their memories to the present. The trolley, for example, no longer runs along

Woodland Avenue, which has been covered over and incorporated into campus. Moreover, the

campus newspaper no longer devotes itself almost exclusively to coverage of sports and social

14

events, having diversified into other arenas of student interest. Crowds that once overflowed

Franklin Field now elbow their way into the sparkling new, air-conditioned Van Pelt Library. By

contrast, an editorial in the March 10, 1914 issue of the Pennsylvanian urged students to take "an

occasional trip" to the library, while some graduates supposedly boasted of never having entered

the library in their four year sojourn at Penn, giving rise to a whole host of questions, the answers

to which are likely more distressing than the situation itself. Their very survival challenged, the

fraternities are attempting to reevaluate their role in the University community, beleaguered by

the rapid transformation of the University throughout the first half of the century. No longer the

playground of the social elite of the first two decades of this century, nor the regional, backwater

institution of the hard 1930s, Penn has attained a position of intellectual leadership, responsible

to the demands of serious young men and women who have sought higher education since World

War II. This shift in the composition of the undergraduate population has driven much of the

social change at the University.

Nevertheless, returning alumni have not found Penn completely altered. The mission of

the institution, as founded by Benjamin Franklin, to provide for the cultural and educational

needs of its community, still motivates the University and remains unchanged. For the man who

treasures the richness of tradition, yet finds delight in intellectually stimulating dynamism, the

Philomathean Society reflects both the most progressive and conservative elements that have

indelibly shaped the character of Pennsylvania, especially during the period of rapid change

following the Second World War.

A bellwether among student organizations, the Society, by 1914, had survived the mass

extinction of collegiate literary societies which had destroyed most of Philo’s counterparts at

other American colleges. These distant cousins of Philo had perished either by attempting to

maintain the pure scholasticism of the German university or by becoming purely social

fraternities, succumbing to social pressures at their several institutions. In this sense,

Philomathean Hall was rarely an “ivory tower,” as it sought not only to incorporate a social

aspect in its activities, but also engage with the University community as a whole. Thus,

although the Society was no longer the preeminent student organization at Penn, a status which it

had shared with Zelo, Philomatheans continued to take an active part in matters vital to the

University community and the world at large. This hybrid existence necessarily has created

ambiguity and even confusion among non-members with respect to what exactly Philo is. This

15

selfsame duality, however, is the feature that has allowed Philo to survive the changes in the

University, furnishing the Society with an immense flexibility that permits Philo to show

whichever face is needed at a given moment, depending upon the currents of the University at

large. Hence, during the Depression, when Penn had fallen in status academically, Philo became

more socially-oriented, only to rekindle its academic prowess after the war.

Despite this somewhat curious position, Philo very often found itself at the center of

University debates, participating in the shaping of Penn. On such struggle arose in 1915 between

a relatively conservative faction of alumni and an embattled faculty over the issues of academic

freedom and control over educational policy. Penn historian Edward P. Cheney records that on

June 15, 1915, the Board of Trustees curtly informed the young, popular, but controversial

Assistant Professor of economics, Dr. Scott Nearing that his appointment would not be renewed

and tenure would not be granted. Further, the right to appeal was summarily denied. This action

provoked a harsh condemnation of the University by the American Association of University

Professors. Although Dr. Nearing was not restored to his position, the faculty eventually secured

a more desirable appointment procedure as a result of the incident, safeguarding against further

incidents. Philomatheans clearly sympathized with the faculty position in their debates and

discussions.

Similarly, another struggle emerged in 1919 and concerned the granting of permission to

a "Labor Discussion Group" to use the quarters of the Society. The debate, although ostensibly

couched in terms of procedure with respect to allowing an external group use of the halls,

exposed stark differences among the members as to the desirability of social change and its

possible directions. It was an era characterized intellectually and emotionally by the challenging

and supplanting of “old truths” by “new truths,” resulting in institutional and societal cognitive

dissonance and the consequent tension and frustration. Further, the debates and Literary

Exercises throughout this period reflected a basic concern of Philomatheans in broader ethical

questions. In 1918, the Society adopted a proposal promulgated by Moderator John Frederick

Lewis Jr., that an honor examination system be instituted at Penn, and a petition from the Society

was presented to the faculty.

Religion also attracted the critical attention of the University student. An appearance by

evangelist Billy Sunday in the vicinity of campus attracted some nine thousand spectators.

Subsequently, in response a petition circulated and signed by a significant number of students,

16

compulsory attendance at chapel services was required in September, 1914, breaking with Penn’s

tradition as a secular institution. By the following March, however, attendance had fallen, and

student opinion was sharply divided over the requirement.

The dropping of Greek as a required course in 1914 had its repercussions for the

University community. In the spring of 1916, Philo substituted an English salutatory in place of

the Greek welcoming address at its annual Commencement Exercises, mirroring the pattern

evident in the wider University. The traditional Latin poem at the Commencement was likewise

replaced by an English poem in a rejection of the erstwhile sacrosanct Classical languages in

favor of a more democratic alternative in vernacular English. This additional step away from the

classical languages anticipated the University recognition of modern languages as equal to their

ancient counterparts when Classical language requirements were dropped entirely in 1918. This

example, then, further supports the pattern of twinning that has characterized Philo’s relationship

to the University. It is difficult, of course, to determine whether Philo and the University are

responding to one another or if both institutions are reacting to the same group of exogenous

forces.

In the same fashion, some of the preliminary skirmishes over equal academic rights for

women first took place on the floor of the Philomathean Hall. Following a recommendation of

the Provost which was later approved by the Faculty, concerning the integration of women

students into the College, Philomatheans discussed the possible admission of women into the

Society in December of 1917. At the time, most Philomatheans strongly opposed both the

Provost's plan and the admittance of women into the Society. Shortly thereafter, the Society

debated its Zelosophic rival on the question, deciding, expectedly, that the University ought to

maintain its policy of segregation. In reporting a subsequent debate concerning the propriety of

war-time restrictions on free speech, The Pennsylvanian on January 25, 1918, noted the

significance accorded the debates: “It will be a no decision debate, but a straw vote will be taken,

as in the last event, when the co-ed question was debated. This meeting was well Attended...held

the same evening as a meeting of the Board of University Trustees, and, as a result, one of the

Trustees and several faculty members showed up to judge student opinion." Hence, this passage

is a substantive indication that Philo, at least, in part, influenced the administration’s perception

of undergraduate preferences, though it remains unclear as to how heavily such considerations

weighed upon the Trustees in their making their decision.

17

By 1914, the pall from World War I had begun to descend over the Society, influencing

all aspects of Society life. Despite the sobering presence of the War, discussion managed to

remain humorous for a while. In explaining "The War Loan," for example, Society Treasurer

Pearce Gabell declared the United States Treasury to be "much in the same condition as that of

the Philomathean..." How the war was to affect America was still uncertain and responses varied.

By October of 1915, however, the specter of compulsory military drill faced American college

students and it became increasingly difficult to ignore the realities of the European War. Young

war enthusiasts circulated a petition calling on the Trustees to provide military training for the

student body. Philomatheans such as Robert Spiller raised their voices to defend opponents of

the petition from the vituperation and aspersion of its backers, urging an abstention from war.

Further, Philomathean Ralph Cheyney, son of the historian, declared his intention to sail on the

“Ark of Peace” expedition planned by Rosika Schwimmer and sponsored by Henry Ford. Among

the orders issued to convince the nation that it was indeed at war, was a ten P.M. curfew, which

necessitated an earlier meeting time for the Society. Plans for an all-University honor code and

the integration of women students into the College dissolved as Major Charles T. Griffith of the

United States Army assumed command of the University, effectively suspending the normal

function of student activities, though the Society maintained its most basic operations. Philip

Price and other members courageously raised their voices against the mounting intolerance

against dissenters and usurpation of the University by the military.

Many members and recent graduates promptly enlisted to join the war effort. The

consequent manpower drain forced the Society to suspend some provisions of its constitution

during the war; previous notions of quorum had to be reconsidered and revised to accommodate

the wartime context. World War I had hardly ended when the college alumni, through a

specially-constituted "Committee of One hundred," produced the "Wilmington declaration,"

decrying the undefined but evident trend in University affairs toward the creation of a large

university in the sense known today. Primarily graduates residing in the Philadelphia area, these

alumni wanted Penn to remain a small regional institution which would promote "training for

leadership," rather than adapt its focus to a more modern model. Though the University was

hard-pressed financially, they remained hesitant to accept state aid, fearing political intervention

and interference that would wrest control of the University away from the Trustees and place it

in the hands of the state.

18

In support of the majority faculty position, the Society passed a resolution at the time of

the resignation of Provost Edgar Fahs Smith that differed sharply with the alumni’s "Wilmington

declaration." The Society even supported conversion of the University into a state institution,

which it had not been since a brief period in the late 1780s, although this proposition was never

realized. Even so, in 1920 the government seemed to be the only source of needed financial

support in an era in which education was even more starved for funds than is the case today. In

effect, the Society went on record as substantially endorsing the vigorous expansion and

advancement that would not begin until the period of concerted development carried out by the

Harnwell administration. This then, is another instance of Philo playing an active role in debating

University policy. This particular position in support of the expansion the University is should be

noted, however, because, as will become evident, as the University has expanded, Philo has had

to contend with the realities of being a small cadre within multiplying undergraduate population.

The early 1920s were self-indulgent years on college campuses. Even Philo occasionally

departed from its generally cautious and benign course of bustling activity in plays and debating,

to involve itself in other, more controversial endeavors, adapting to the prevailing context within

the University, without abjuring its structure and function. Such changes, however, did not go

unnoticed. On one occasion on which Philo demonstrated its flirtation with the more libertine

aspects of Penn, the University administration became incensed when the Society joined a

student protest over the expulsion of several high-spirited campus rowdies.

The later 1920s and early 1930s found Pennsylvanians stirred by the "Valley Forge Plan,"

the Sacco-Vanzetti case, and prohibition. From about 1926 until the outbreak of the Second

World War, considerable discussion in Philo and among Penn alumni centered on efforts to

relocate the University from its home in West Philadelphia. The substantial enthusiasm

generated for the proposal evidenced the latent dissatisfaction felt by most students, faculty

members, and alumni with the rather unappealing city surroundings of West Philadelphia.

Indeed, many alumni refused to send their children to Pennsylvania; school loyalty was hard to

nourish, especially considering the unsavory trappings of the campus. Several Penn alumni

offered to contribute farmland sites at Valley Forge to the University, contingent on a time limit

for the relocation. The uncertain long-range financial position of the University treasury as well

as powerful opposition of some sanguine faculty members eventually barred the plan from being

implemented and the University ultimately remained in its West Philadelphia location. One issue

19

that gave rise to intense factionalism within the society and the University was the Sacco-

Vanzetti case. The outcome of one particularly heated discussion in the Society was recorded,

but lost to history, as several passages of the minute book were torn out. To the contrary, the

Prohibition issue seems to have inspired more evasive actions than noble words. All of these

events and trends, moreover, determined the forces working upon the Society and influenced the

interaction between Philo and its members, both in terms of continuity within the society and the

changes that it chose to adopt.

Activities

If the Philomathean Society ever needed a justification, the scope and brilliance of its

activities would serve admirably. Its efforts have been high in quality, while being predominately

planned and realized by the students themselves with minimal faculty intervention or assistance.

The varied nature of the activities reflects the broad interests and needs of Philomatheans,

evincing the truly mercurial nature of a Society whose composition manifestly alters its

activities. That is, as opposed to other organizations, such as athletic teams or publications, Philo

does not select members on the basis of their ability to fulfill a predetermined and explicitly

defined role within the Society. Thus, it is hard to speak of a set roster of Philomathean activities,

but a general assessment of the more prominent activities follows.

Dramatics

Of all the efforts that engaged members, none consumed as much time or drew as

substantial or visible a public response as the dramatic programs performed by Philo. Its eager

young actors were expansively productive in a variety of dramatic undertakings throughout the

academic year. Ambitious projects were launched, often with little apparent concern over the

financial responsibilities to be incurred, continuing Philo’s tempestuous relationship with fiscal

responsibility, budget deficits, and abysmally poor planning. These matters, however, rarely

preoccupied the membership, who instead chose to rationalize their situation: if Philo had

weathered the storms of the past, then surely this time was no different and no significant harm

could come of their recklessness Undoubtedly, this attitude must have created many problems for

Society treasurers, who, fortunately, had a tendency to be both loyal and exceptionally

resourceful. Most importantly, however, these dramatic programs did much to enrich the cultural

20

life of the University as well as to provide valuable experience for all participants, thus fulfilling

its stated purpose and continuing the historical pattern of recasting itself to fit whatever need or

absence it perceived within the University.

For many years the Society presented annual productions of outstanding quality. In an era

more remembered for its "Ziegfield Follies," Philo produced works of a considerably more

serious nature. In 1914 the University witnessed Beaumont and Fletcher's Knight of the Burning

Pestle, which was a triumph for the member-players. Playing three consecutive nights at the

Little Theatre, this production quite possibly surpassed any previous Philomathean dramatic

endeavor, both in preparation and in execution. All the furnishings were faithful to the

Elizabethan setting of the plays, including the portrayal of female roles by played by male

Society members. Further, publicity materials waxed poetic, presenting the play as “a satyre

uponne the overblown and fantastique chivalry of that daye,” no doubt indulging some member’s

penchant for atavism. In a review in The Pennsylvanian of May 14, 1914, Dr. Felix Schelling of

the English department praised the production both for its entertainment value and its

authenticity. Repeating an earlier success, performed in 1912, a Society cast also presented The

Shoemaker’s Holiday. In this play by Thomas Dekkar, a contemporary of Shakespeare, one

Simon Eyre rises in the world to become Lord Mayor of Locidon. Ernest F. Hausser, the poet

who was to die in World War I, played the lead role. By now an enthusiastic friend of Philo,

Professor Schelling supervised the arrangements to ensure authenticity. Under a headline "Philo

Play Great Success," The Pennsylvanian wrote on May 7, 1915, “The intelligent appreciation of

the company of the meaning of the lines and the power of the play bespeaks hard work.”

While their acting on the whole had afforded artistic successes, the men of Philo were

dissatisfied with the rather un-Elizabethean setting of both the Little Theatre and the Botanical

Gardens. Spurred on by the ambitious and imaginative chairman of the Play Committee, George

F. Kearney, the Society announced its intention to reconstruct the Globe Theatre in West

Philadelphia. First proposed by Kearney in October of 1915, the plans won an enthusiastic

response among both Philomatheans and the faculty.

The rather ambitious Philo project drew considerable attention from the Philadelphia

press. Public interest combined with substantial Society efforts served to make the Philomathean

Society sponsored production of The Comedy of Errors a major element in the Philadelphia

commemoration of the tercentenary of the death of Shakespeare. The elaborate production,

21

however, necessitated opening the casting tryouts to the entire student body, to the mutual

satisfaction of eager non-member undergraduates and an overburdened Society. Moreover, a new

precedent was set, as the Society for the first time permitted women to participate in its

production, beginning a general pattern toward integration. Although admittedly unfaithful to the

original in this detail, the performances successfully avoided the often farcical effect of an all

male cast. The response to the tryouts and the ensuing competition for coveted roles were so

intense that the Society elected to select two distinct casts to perform on alternate nights during

the week of performance. Moreover, this production marked the beginning of the relatively long-

standing and mutually beneficial relationship between the Society and Percy Winters, a

prominent American drama critic and director, who oversaw the Philomathean play.

The planning progressed well. Hamilton Walk was selected to be the site of the new

Globe theatre and Dr. Horace Furness, Jr., drew up building plans, while Dr. Felix Schelling

supervised construction details. The new Globe had a capacity of about one thousand and cost

approximately $1,350 in material costs. As the first performance drew near, public interest

mounted. Philadelphia newspapers carried extensive advance feature articles and the Evening

Ledger of May 17, 1916, carried a photograph of the reconstructed Globe. Even The

Pennsylvanian relaxed the usual iron hold of sports coverage to welcome the debut. Unlike the

photo coverage in the city press, the campus paper did not make an exception to its de facto

policy of printing photographs only of athletes or dead faculty members.

Complete with photos of the cast, the Philadelphia press printed enthusiastic reviews of

the Society's production. The following excerpt from the Evening Ledger of May 16, 1916

represents the nature of the reviews, “The place of presentation could not have been better

chosen....the way (to the theater) was through dim-lit lanes, overhung with branches and

greenery, such lanes as London had with its sputtering lanterns.... The audience, in the pit, sat

with heads bared to the blue vaults of heaven and came away with better health for the hours

spent.... A merry prologue, full of philosophy as a walnut of meat, came pell-mell from the brain

of Prof. Felix E. Schelling, through the mouth of a most excellent and entertaining fool. Then the

play was on, and the play was the thing. No scene shifting at the Globe in 1599. Then, as last

night, a bustling lad hustled out, put up a placard telling the imagination of the next scene and act

represented, and so swift was the action, so keen the dialogue, so witty the actor lads and lassies,

that no sense of loss was experienced. The excellent cast has been thoroughly drilled..., and it

22

gave a presentation that made the heart long for more of it, for a return of the days when the

stage did not bewilder the eye and stun the senses with a riot of color and noise and movement,

but made its appeal to heart and brain. Between acts...there were gay dances.... drilled by C.

Ellwood Carpenter. And there was strange, stirring barbaric music from an orchestra conducted

by Karl R. Alden....Particularly well done were the parts of the Dromios, interpreted by Park B.

Turner and F. DeWaters; Solinus, by Edward Anschutz; Aegon, by L. H. Harris, and the

Antipholis of Syracuse, by R. Bevis Lord.”

The North American of the same date wrote, “The shade of Shakespeare himself might

have witnessed the performance...last night with no reason to suspect that 300 years had passed

since he and his company had trod the boards of the old Globe Theater at Southwark.”

Besides being an artistic success, the Comedy of Errors netted the Society $1,500 in

profits, despite the enormous outlay that the production had demanded. Rather than going to the

Society coffers to protect Philo from future debt, the profits were used to adapt the Philo library

chamber into a convertible experimental theater complete with portable stage. The library book

cases were removed, and new meeting room seats with overhanging book shelves were installed

to make room for this new arrangement.

Over the summer of 1916, the complexion of national life began to feel ripples of the war

raging in Europe. The national campaign that began to whip up patriotic fervor as a prelude to

American entry into the War had an effect of making the country increasingly self-assertive.

Sensitive to the winds of patriotism and the perceived dominance of European culture, the

Philomathean Society announced plans in late autumn of 1916 to produce a Masque of the

American Drama. Similarly, Arthur Hobson Quinn, Professor of English, felt that more emphasis

should be placed on literature by American authors. Whether Philo simply responded to public

demand or whether it too was swept up in the wave of patriotism is unclear, but it is evident that,

as with other trends in the University, Philo’s actions paralleled broader currents. The year 1917

was to be the one hundred-fiftieth anniversary of the first American production of an American

play, The Prince of Parthia (1767), by Thomas Godfrey. The play, destined to win national

acclaim both for the Society and the University as a whole, the Masque was to assert the claims

of American drama and the maturity of the cultural aspects of American life as equivalent to

their European counterparts.

As developed by the energetic and adept George F. Kearney, the Masque concerns the

23

wooing of the beautiful maiden, Drama, by the strapping young America. Five diversions,

Commerce, Puritanism, Foreign Plays, The Fates, and Industry, in turn preempt the attention of

the distractible America. Meeting their respective challenges, America also tries to prove his

worthiness to the hand of Drama by courting her with five American plays, designed to win her

affections and admiration. Having overcome the myriad diversions and finally won the love of

Drama, America weds her in a lavish ceremony, illustrative of his devotion and persistence.

With the idea of making the Masque a University project, the Philo invited the

Zelosophic Society to be a co-sponsor in promoting student participation and managing the

affair. As one member somewhat bewilderingly expressed himself, "Philo is fulfilling a real

mission if she can draw the floaters and the co-eds into the life of the University." This

admittedly patronizing analysis, while certainly uncouth, indicates the degree to which that this

project influenced University life, as it involved and incorporated social groups that did not

routinely find themselves at the center of student activities and, whether by choice or social

pressure, remained marginalized in this era. While it would be an overstatement to describe the

Philo of this era as an element of social change, it is worthwhile to notice that some of the old

prejudices which still governed social interaction in the nation had begun to break down in the

Philomathean Society.

Plans mushroomed. The poet Albert E. Trombly, an instructor in the Department of

Romance Languages, submitted a script based on a scenario by Professor Quinn that was

enthusiastically received and subsequently published. An architecture student, J. Wilson Brooks,

submitted the winning set of stage plans. Hundreds of students turned out for the play’s casts and

dance groups. Percy Winters devoted his nationally known talent for directing to the endeavor.

The equally-known composer, Reginald de Koven, wrote the score, and an associate of his,

Wassail Leps, took charge of the chorus. Perhaps most impressively, seventy members of the

Philadelphia Orchestra joined the effort and served in the Masque orchestra. Finally, Leicester B.

Holland did an outstanding job in supervising the overall designs and costumes.

Impressed by the scope and importance of the Masque as well as by its competent

management, the University administration proved cooperative in some crucial arrangements.

For example, the University’s willingness to extend gym credit to participants in the Masque

dance groups no doubt cultivated an increased interest and involvement in the production from

the student population. The cast had been selected by Charles Sommer and a non-member, Miss

24

Gloniger, won the coveted roles of America and Drama respectively. The Society selected the

best designs for the lead to a costume. Rather than the typical representation of "Uncle Sam," the

organizers favored his portrayal as a frontiersman.

President Wilson asked Congress for a formal declaration of war. Responding to this

critical moment, the Philo-Zelo Masque Committee voted to contribute all profits from the

endeavor to the University's newly established Base Hospital. Work continued on the project and

students from the University enrolled in various phases of the stage production. The Botanical

Gardens had to expand their venue to accommodate the expected crowds. An ad hoc cottage

industry emerged on the fourth floor of College Hall as the Zelo quarters were appropriated by

fifteen seamstresses for their temporary workshop and Philo Hall was transformed into a dye

works for some 2,500 yards of costume material. In total, nearly fifteen hundred costumes had to

be dyed and sewn from fresh bolts of fabric.

The set, once completed, consisted of a broad stage in the foreground on which the

massive dance groups and choruses performed, behind which sat a raised platform upon which

the principal actions and events took place. Finally, behind both of these were stages upon which

scenes from five American plays were re-enacted in pantomime as part of the lager production,

allowing for an effective portrayal of the plays-within-a-play framing of the Masque. The

production was undeniably enormous, requiring expert coordination, staging, and directing to

avoid the potential chaos that a play of this complexity could become. This production then,

represents the apogee of Philomathean dramatics and of the Society’s relative prestige and clout

as an organization. The sheer enormity and intricacy of the production should indicate not only

Philo’s logistical capabilities, but also the respect and influence that the Society commanded

among the student body and with the University administration. By opening night, the chilly

evening of May 14, 1917, the eyes of the University and the city focused upon the Masque of the

American Drama, which, by this point, had even received some national attention. Besides a

special “Masque issue” of the campus magazine, Red & Blue, and lengthy articles in the city

press, a national periodical, Book News Monthly featured a special article by Dr. Quinn on the

Masque.

Aided by milder weather toward the end of the week, the Masque was seen by thousands

of spectators throughout its run. Many prominent actors, artists, educators, and politicians either

attended or sent their heartiest best wishes, lauding the efforts of the Society and the students

25

who contributed their time to the production. Highly pleased with what had seen and heard

earlier in the week, the noted composer and critic, Reginald de Koven personally conducted the

orchestra at the Friday evening performance. The Masque was not simply an artistic success, but

also a community achievement. A Pennsylvanian article dated May 21, 1917, echoed national

sentiment, “For the first time, art, like athletics, became a university activity and a medium to

unite a whole community,” thus illustrating Philo’s profound influence on University life,

fulfilling its stated goal of increasing “the academic prestige” of the University. On Saturday, an

editorial further commented, “After two performances today the Masque of American Drama

will be a matter of history. But in the records of Pennsylvania's achievements none will hold a

more worthy or larger place,” echoing the significance of the contribution that Philo had made to

the University.

After audiences, hands tired from applause, had deserted the Gardens and after the

University had basked in national attention, the Masque Committee suddenly found itself facing

a startling debt of $19,000, despite the unmitigated success of the production and the critical

acclaim that it had received. Threatened with financial peril, the Society immediately sought to

make up the disparity. This balance was eventually raised by the students under the leadership of

George F. Kearney and John F. Lewis, Jr. The initial public fund-raising effort, a dance, saw for

the first time at the University both men and women students assuming actual managerial

responsibilities, rather than token or ceremonial roles. The dance, however, failed to raise

sufficient funds to allay the creditors and the crippling debt incurred by the Masque was only

finally met after the two literary societies collaborated to sponsor a highly successful, mass

patriotic rally at Franklin Field, featuring nationally known entertainers and demonstrations by

units of the Armed Forces. Unsurprisingly, given the rash of unfettered patriotism which had

spawned the Masque in the first place, this effort actually produced a modest surplus.

Philomatheans donated the $860 in profits from the venture to begin a construction fund for a

new University Hospital to replace to the make-shift "base hospital" which had proven lacking.

Even while the Masque was being arranged, the Society was producing original plays

written by Penn students in its "Playshop" series. Philo decided, however, to break precedent

with past efforts of this type and ran the series without Zelo assistance. A student competition

was held for one program. The contest was judged by professors of English Clarence Griffin

Child and Thomas O'Bolger, who selected three plays from the applicants, including two works

26

submitted by Philomatheans: The Great God Bull, by Robert E. Spiller, and May, a Morality

Play by George F. Kearney. John Frederick Lewis, Jr., son of the President of the Pennsylvania

Academy of Fine Arts and manager of the "Playshop", secured the Academy building for a

special performance and arranged subsequent presentations before the Drama League of

Philadelphia and the Philomusian Club. This series provided Philomatheans and other

undergraduates a venue for creative expression on a smaller scale than the larger Philomathean

productions, responding the absence of a University course in creative writing or theatrical

production. This series, like the Society itself, offered creative minds a forum for peer review

and criticism outside of the formal strictures of

Insufficient fund-raising efforts and the war emergency necessitated the postponement of

any further plays until the spring term of 1919, especially considering the financial disaster

wrought by the Masque. Continuing its new policy of engaging the services of both the non-

members and women, Philo held try-outs in March for a series of short Russian plays. The coach

of the series was a Professor of Sanskrit, Dr. Franklin Edgerton. Further, Philo sent out

delegations to the Philadelphia high schools to secure a maximum audience for the production.

Being realistic and cautious in the light of recent events, members were asked to underwrite any

losses by personal financial contributions, hoping to avoid the calamitous debt that the Society

had faced following the Masque. The program was performed on Saturday, May 17, 1919 to a

modest, but positive reception.

From Russia, the Society turned its attention to the prodigious outpouring of Irish

creative efforts. An Irish program and an original play were scheduled. Professor of English, Dr.

Cornelius Weygandt, an expert in Irish plays as evinced by his 1913 work Irish Plays and

Playwrights, headed the committee to select the original play from among thirteen entries. The

Irish program, which included the plays In the Shadow of the Glen by J.M. Synge, The Rising of

the Moon, by Lady Gregory, The Singers by Padraic Pearse, and Land of Heart’s Desire by W.B.

Yeats, won the strong and vocal support of the local Pan-Celtic Union, and was presented to

enthusiastic audiences in the Academy of Music in Philadelphia on May 19, 1920. Inspired by

the successes of Philo and the interest in drama which the Society had created, the English

department started a Dramatic Club in the fall of 1920. Despite its attempts, however, after the

war, the Society was unable to recapture the mighty momentum built up during the

aforementioned halcyon, now known as the "Golden Age of Philo." This was particularly true in

27

regard to dramatic activities which require not only consistent dedication and direction, but also

substantial outlays of money, as evinced by the case of the Masque of American Drama and the

subsequent fundraising campaigns to stave off debt. Apparently, the membership had tired of

staging productions only to be met with substantial deficits.

Throughout the early twenties, the Society presented annual productions, many of which

were original works. In 1923, the Society presented a program of original plays at the

Philomusian Club. In 1924, after a false start with a projected offering of Oedipus Rex, the

Society presented three playlets by Lord Dunsay: The Glittering Gate, The Lost Silk Hat, and

Fame and the Poet. The 1925 production of The Critic reversed the trend to deficit financing.

Even so, by the late twenties, the Society had produced so many financially unsuccessful

productions by 1926, Philo sentiment entreated, "Let's not have a charity production" reflecting

the Society’s desire to avoid the losses that had become expected from dramatic endeavors. This

sentiment led members to refrain from launching new productions because of anemic Society

support, choosing instead to focus on other endeavors.

The grand tradition was continued, despite controversy. These efforts, however, did little

to vindicate their proponents. For example, in May of 1926, poor ticket sales greeted Philo’s

interpretation of Edmond Rostand's Chanticleer. Similarly, rehearsal cutting and a lack of

enthusiasm plagued the 1927 offering, He Who Gets Slapped by Andreyev. Hence, the Dramatic

Period of Philomathean history had ended; from this point forward, Philo life would no longer be

dominated by its functions as a theatre company, permitting other aspects of the Society to

become more developed. To this end, the Censors noted a "smoldering" revolt by the members

against plays. Further, the Society treasurer was beleaguered by bill collectors, eager to make

good on Society debts. Despite motions to the contrary, a paucity of member support, and

historical precedent, Molière’s Tartuffe or the Hypocrite was produced in the spring of 1927, and

afforded an aesthetic success, as well as the additional financial havoc that had come to be

expected from such endeavors. Lack of faith in Philo's ability to sell tickets impelled the

University to demand a heavy, personal underwriting by the members of any possible debts prior

to further productions. This edict in March of 1928, accompanied by the transfer of the Society

to less adequate space in Houston Hall the following fall, dissuaded the members from

scheduling further efforts for several years. Thus, other than an occasional "Christmas burlesque"

and other similarly inexpensive farces, the next manifestation of interest in drama came in March

28

of 1931, when the Society voted to enter into the Dramatic Art Alliance competition. Several

members claimed that this move was dictated by Zelo's example.

During almost two decades preceding the move from College Hall, Philomathean

dramatics brought many outstanding cultural programs to the University. The productions not

only afforded Society members and other students invaluable artistic and business experience,

but provided Penn with the benefits from of hosting such cultural events, including a highly

favorable public perception. Certainly, the University of today owes a great deal to the weary but

proud Philomatheans, heir to the rich heritage in dramatics that Philomatheans helped to provide.

Debating

Intercollegiate debating formed another crucial segment of Philomathean life,

supplanting, to some degree, theatrics after the decline of dramatic productions in the twenties.

Until World War II and its ensuing homelessness, the Philomathean Society was renowned for

its debating teams. Besides spirited debates held with the Zelosophic Society and a co-ed team,

Philomatheans journeyed to other colleges, including Swarthmore, Haverford, Cornell,

Columbia, and Villanova all of whom succumbed to an often victorious Philomathean squad. A

typical event might pit Philomatheans against the Philolexian Society of Columbia on such

burning issues of the day as the direct election of senators, women’s suffrage, and US

intervention in Europe.

Debates, while always competitive, were not necessarily divisive or antagonistic; often,

the Philo-Zelo debate would feature mixed teams composed of members representing both

societies. Further, intra-Society debating played a prominent role in Philo. Many of these topics

pertained to Philomathean or University life, including such debates as "Resolved, that the

University ...should adopt the German university system." The negative side prevailed,

preferring the day-to-day emphasis of the American system over the final exam system prevalent

in Germany. Further, especially in internal debates, wit served as a supplement to formal

debating technique, allowing participants to demonstrate additional talents. Among the surviving

fragments of internal debate is a quip from November 19, 1920. When one speaker saw the hand

of anarchist Emma Goldman behind the Non-Partisan League of the Northern Plains, another

observed "that it doesn't matter what men are behind a movement--the movement may be good

but the men may not. Examples: Philadelphia politics, the athletic council, Philo's plays, and the

29

Wharton School.” This emphasis on debate was further reflected in the prominence of Philo in

the University debate community; in 1918, for example, five of the six recipients of the coveted

golden “P” were Philos, namely, Charles C. Parlin, E. Sculley Bradley, George Parlin, Charles L.

Seasholes, and John F. Lewis, Jr.

The wide appeal of debating as an important field of intercollegiate competition

prompted the Society to form the first Philadelphia high school debate league in 1917. A

circulating trophy was awarded annually until 1931, when the perennial champions, Gratz High,

retired the cup and kept it for their personal collection, necessitating the purchase of another

trophy. The league fostered the participation and success of many Philadelphia schools,

including Central, Germantown, Frankford, and South Philadelphia High Schools. These efforts

did not go without notice, and in 1923 the Dean of the College, Robert Belle Burke, specifically

commended the Society for its encouragement of high school debating. This annual award has

continued to the present, with the second cup still in circulation. As with dramatics, Philo

adapted, according to the desire of its members, to satisfy the perceived need for an expanded

debating league.

Athletics

Sportsmen of a sort, Philos for many years fielded their own football and baseball teams

for intramural play. Zelo, of course, as Philo’s neighbor to the East, served as Philo’s primary

rival in these contests. Zelo, however, was not the Society’s only competition on campus. For

example, one football game in October of 1914 found eleven Philo men pitted against an

unyielding faculty team determined prove their superiority, consisting of Drs. Child, Hadzits,

Lichtenberger, Moxey, Nearing, O'Bolger, Shelly, and Weygandt, and Deans Quinn, McCrea,

and Frazer. A thriller, the game ended in a tie, 69-69, allowing both Philo and the Faculty to

declare they hadn’t lost.

One of Professor George Taylor's favorite stories relates how Philomatheans actually

won one match without having to go to the field. It appears that one year, Zelo traversed the

rarefied space atop College Hall and challenged a particularly inexperienced Philomathean

Society to a rugged test of endurance. The rather unseasoned Philos demurred, suggesting that

perhaps it was too cold outside for such athletic competitions. Intrigued, however, the intrepid

Philos pulled out their encyclopedias and other reference works and tried to figure out exactly

what kind of a game football was. Having acquired a sufficient definition, they began to examine

30

their resources, add up their weights, employ physics as needed, and survey the playing field.

After these extensive calculations, the Philomatheans became so convinced of the inevitability of

their victory that they drew up a formal mathematical proof delineating their undeniable

superiority and submitted it to Zelo for consideration. Strangely enough, Zelo folded and

forfeited the game on the strength of the proof alone. This anecdote, while perhaps apocryphal

and almost certainly embellished for effect, captures the whimsical levity that has long

characterized Philo and, better than any other factor, explains Philo’s ability to maintain its

precarious position between social and intellectual, without a definite, clearly described mandate.

Publications

Philomatheans have not only been budding actors, brash debaters, and intellectual, albeit

foppish, athletes, but also earnest young editors. Virtually all publications that have addressed

themselves specifically to a University of Pennsylvania audience originated as Society

enterprises. Internally, the Society maintained a number of journals. Of particular note were The

Philomathean, a weekly commentary bulletin published throughout 1913 and 1914, and its

successor, the Garrett Gazette that served as a forum members while keeping them apprised of

Society events. The Gazette, however, was not identical to The Philomathean and emerged from

a separate impulse.

For many years prior to 1919, a black box stood in the Philomathean Hall into which

members would deposit whatever original writings they wished, and at a specified time during

each meeting, the contents were read aloud to the membership. This tradition was formalized in

1919, when a member was appointed to type the offerings and bind them into a volume called

The Garrett Gazette. This publication, named for the fourth floor of College Hall inhabited by

Philos and Zelos, additionally took on the duties of The Philomathean and became Philo’s only

weekly publication. The Gazette was intended solely for internal reading and contained a variety

of subject matter, ranging from essays to poetry and plays. The complete series remains in the

Society's archives.

Another internal publication reflecting the member's intense interest in dramatics was The

Philocritic, which contained reviews by Philomatheans of most legitimate theatrical productions

performed in Philadelphia. The Society's fame as a dramatic organization seems to have been

sufficient through the early twenties for its envoys to receive courtesy passes to the Philadelphia

31

theaters, so that Philo reviewers might assay current productions without burdening the Society

financially.

Furthermore, Philo was instrumental in the establishment and foundation of nearly every

University publication, including The Pennsylvanian, University Magazine, and The Punch

Bowl. These organizations, in a pattern that parallels that of dramatic organizations, soon

splintered from Philo, severing official ties, thought they retained substantial connections to the

Society. The example of The Pennsylvanian is typical in that by 1887 it retained no official

association with Philo, though a substantial portion of its editorial board was comprised of

Philomatheans, including the first editor-in-chief, George Wharton Pepper, who was

concurrently the Society’s Moderator. Hence, Philo influence in the newspaper was, technically,

unofficial, though it could exert control if needed. Over time, this connection deteriorated,

though Philo generally maintained a member on the boards of most student publications. Other

campus wide publications in which Society members had a major initiating interest included the

monthly literary journals, Red & Blue, The Lotus, and Junto. With its lively articles by well-

known writers and refreshing campus unknowns, Junto helped Philo achieve its mission by

creating a University forum for intellectual discourse.

Lecture programs

One of the most outstanding services that the Society has contributed to the intellectual

life of the University has always been its provision of a respected rostrum. Through this vehicle,

members spoke to the Society and guest speakers lectured before campus audiences, edifying

and enriching their spectators. The inception of the “Two O'clock Talk” series in the spring of

1914 won an attentive reception and a loyal following. A Pennsylvanian editorial of March 25,

1914, applauded the series as the "first, definite attempt to bring Faculty and students together!"

The spring program included lectures by Drs. Weygandt and Nearing who spoke on “Modern

Movements in Literature” and “Reducing the High Cost of Living,” respectively. The fall 1914,

series featured lectures by Drs. Lichtenberger, Lingebach, Patten, Schelling and Twitmyer, on

economic, historical, and social aspects of the “European war.” With the exception of a

University sponsored series, the general caliber of most other campus offerings might be

characterized by noting a speech in 1915 by the Bishop of Brazil, wherein he saw the major

threat to South America arising from "infidels," though what he meant by this is not entirely

32

clear. Suffice it to say that at this time, Philo provided one of the few venues for substantive

intellectual engagement outside of the classroom.

Although its public events became less frequent during the 1920s, many faculty members

and alumni favored the Society with talks made particularly vital by the special interest the

speakers had in their topics. The scope of these lectures to the public and the Literary Exercises

given at general meetings ranged from American literature to Thai legend, offering a wide

variety of topics for discussion.

Social Activities

Many purely social activities served to lighten the week, distracting members from the

demands of academic life. Dubbed with such names as "Hobo's Night," members made

excursions to Philadelphia stage productions and cultural offerings. Some more adventurous

Philomatheans also occasionally organized hikes. With the arrival of spring, Philomatheans often

left the books, scripts, and speeches behind for a day's jaunt to such spots as Valley Forge (1915)

and Bryn Athyn (1921). A winter dance often featured prominently in the Philomathean calendar

in the days before World War II. Other purely social events included Christmas and graduation

parties. A rather clever scheme to link past with present before the advent of a Philo Alumni

Association was a “Grandfather's Night” party in the fall of 1915 which gave Senior members

and opportunity to mingle with the junior membership without being intrusive.

Traditions

Maintaining the customs of the Society and its distinctive institutions has not been an

easy task. Each year there are prospective candidates for membership who are bemused,

astounded, or enraged upon discovering the seeming quaintness and patent absurdity of the

Society. Many have bristled with an ill-informed suspicion of what appears to be snobbish

exclusiveness. Possibly many new members firmly resolve themselves to either ignore or

trample on the inexplicably sacrosanct traditions of the Society. Such iconoclasts, however, are

generally tempered by the sentiments of their peers. For the traditionalist, the initially strange

ways of the Society need no justification. Such an individual soon finds himself at home in a

student organization whose past accomplishments demonstrate its potential for future

achievement. The questioning mind and the creative soul find here a favorable environment in

which to develop among supportive and interested peers. For the pragmatist, on the other hand,

33

the one hundred fifty year history of the Society demonstrates the elements of continuity

afforded by the traditional in Philo as a counterbalance to the essential characteristic and

instability of all student societies, that of an ever-changing membership.

The Society was incorporated in 1917 as a non-profit corporation under the laws of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Members Pearce Gabell, Walter Chambers, Albert Elsasser,

Edgar M. Luttgen, and Philip Price were instrumental in the incorporation process and are

responsible for the protections that Philo enjoys as a result. The Charter of the corporation is still

prominently displayed in the present Philomathean Hall. The original purpose of incorporation,

unsurprisingly, was to protect those members who had reached their majority from any personal

liability for debts incurred from the Masque of the American Drama or any future productions.

Members thereafter, however, were not only participants in a student organization, but were also

the members of a corporation whose directors and officers were the same as the Cabinet and

officers of the student Society. As an organization, Philo had long proven itself unique. Now it

was to be unique as a corporation as well, for what other corporation would receive a letter that

contained "gentle swats from the Dean and Vice-Provost as to 'raising hell with our brains'"?

George Kearney's boldly descriptive summation of Philomathean activities, "Join Philo and raise

hell with your brains" was first used on a 1917 membership recruiting poster, and was

subsequently moderated to mollify Administration sensibilities.

Membership recruiting took far more forms than bold posters. A weekly internal

publication in October of 1914, stated: "Philo is now reaping her harvest. Ever since the notable

drought of 1908-10, she had been diligently sowing and tilling. Ubiquitous placards, mail matter,

plays, banquet, debates, two o'clock talks, journalistic squibs and spreads, and the personal

element have all been approaching their logical conclusion...we have beheld the gratifying

multitude which came...; verily a throng of ardent suitors. A little comparison...

Smoker Attendance 1911 40 1912 50 1913 60 1914 125

We are now recruiting men to fill our available berths, from the finest lot of men....

Therefore, members of Philo let us bear patiently with our moderator and accept meekly his

demands for special meetings, though they shatter home ties, and even wrench our very heart-

34

strings."

Typical of a good year for Philo was the fall of 1915, when ninety-four candidates

applied for seventeen vacancies, evincing the Society’s enormous popularity with the student

body. Until World War I, applicants spoke before the Society at virtually every meeting,

indicating a broad base of University interest in Philomathean activities, especially considering

that the population of the University was substantially smaller then than it is now. This interest

then reflects not only the character of a University eager for an intellectual forum outside of the

formal curriculum and collegiate spaces, but also the prominence and cache of the Society within

the University as respected organization.

Integrating new members into the Society has always been a challenge to the viability of

the institution. Exasperated by what he considered to be a particularly reticent crop of new

members, Frank Baxter declared in 1922 that he was worried that the new members might be

turning into "silent sphinxes," unwilling, or perhaps, unable to contribute to the discourse of the

Society in a manner that he would have liked. A 1915 meeting was devoted to an "Intensive

Study of Philomatheans" directed toward the newer members, emphasizing such interpersonal

skills as criticizing without offense. A 1919 Traditions Committee report scored the ever-lasting

problem of maintaining high levels of attendance despite the competition of abundant University

and city activities, as well as academic pressures.

Factionalism, a dangerous element in any organization, has generally been kept under

control in the Society. Through the years, the Moderators, who are the officers most responsible

for promoting unity, along with the rest of the membership, have been on guard against this

influence. The Society early took a decisive stand for unity and open mindedness and in 1916,

John Frederick Lewis, Jr., won the support of the Society in adding to the initiation oath a pledge

explicitly prohibiting racial or religious prejudice in considering candidates for membership. In

this respect, Philo was far ahead of most organizations on the campus and in the nation, where

racism and bigotry pervaded, even in relatively progressive circles. Similarly, the Society opened

its doors to all schools of the University once they became firmly established, guaranteeing that

Philo would allow members of all the schools to interact and benefit from their divergent

experiences. Despite this apparent tolerance, the Society, curiously remained closed to women

until after World War II, although it did admit women before the University at large decided

abolish its policy of segregation.

35

Alumni interest in Philo affairs has also fostered stability, as Senior Members provide a

connection with the traditions and history of the society and as such, there have always been

efforts to establish contact with the Society's alumni. Philo early sought to have all future books

by senior members added to its library, although it is not evident that this well-intentioned move

was ever actually implemented. In December of 1919, an Alumni Association was formally

organized for the first time. It had its own letterhead stationery and an official journal called Old

Philo. Volume I, Number 1, spring 1920, of Old Philo contained the following account of the

Association's origins: "During the summer of 1919 a number of the younger Alumni of Philo

formed the very good habit of meeting and eating at more or less regular intervals. There were

three such meetings during the hot months, which were in reality ‘Glad-to-see-you-back-from-

the-front’ parties and had little bearing on the future of Alumni Relations. The same group, with

many additions, met on December 9, 1919, at the Arcadia Cafe, and, between courses, organized

the Alumni Association, elected officers for the current academic year, approved by-laws, which

were later adopted by the undergraduate society as addenda to the Philo constitution, arranged

for a meeting on Washington's Birthday, and adjourned, having accomplished what they

proposed to do.” In 1921, undergraduate representation on the Philomathean Alumni Council

was approved. The Alumni Association continued as a formal body through most of the twenties,

but, as happens with many Philomathean endeavors, eventually became an informal group which

had annual dinners or home gatherings until World War II.

The Twenties also saw substantial change with regard to the composition of the meetings.

The reading of the Philomathean Review was made an official part of the meetings after April of

1921, but the tradition of writing the Review in rhyme was officially dropped in 1928. The order

of the meetings was also changed in 1928. Literary Exercises had, until this point, preceded the

business meeting, but it was seen necessary to reverse their order. This order was modified so as

to maintain attendance during the relatively uninteresting details of Society business, rather than

have the membership file out after the Lit Ex. Rather than be bored, however, members have on

occasion spiced the proceedings by launching verbal battles and displaying their great powers of

oratory and parliamentary maneuvering, much to the distress of the Moderator, the Censores

Morum, and even the speaker of the evening, who have little recourse but to watch impotently as

these rogue members hijack the meeting for their personal enjoyment. In this way, the business

portion of the meeting has grown in prominence, serving as an outlet for members’ creativity and

36

a means of injecting levity and mirth into an otherwise dull section of the meeting.

One additional aspect that contributed to the excitement of Society life was its continual

rivalry with the Zelosophic Society. Much Philomathean energy in the past was directed towards

efforts to surpass the achievements of its junior, rival undergraduate literary society. From 1873

to 1928, Philo and Zelo shared the top floor of College Hall. From either end of the fourth floor,

the societies directed their efforts at producing dramatic presentations, publications, and debating

teams that would outshine the rival. As might be expected, this rivalry frequently inspired a

considerable amount of mischief from both groups. Insistent pounding on the shared dividing

wall often brought the meeting of one of the societies to a noisy halt, as a retributive mission was

dispatched. Raiding parties at times found their way across the roof, along the sill, and through a

window in the adjoining room, where they set upon their unwitting opponents. Having gained

access to the Zelo section in a more traditional way, a Philo “detective committee” in 1922

discovered two publications, the Philo bowl, and a member's book that had recently gone

missing from the Philomathean Halls. These pranks notwithstanding, the tradition of friendly

competition between the two societies proved to inspire the best in both societies.

Throughout the Society's history, Philomatheans have perennially obsessed over signs of

an “imminent decline,” with graduating members certain that the demise of the Society awaits

the more junior members. It is perhaps because members have expressed their concern at

suspected symptoms of this alleged decline that the Society has fought perpetually to retain its

identity and stature, preserving its position at the center of University life. These prophets have

always had ample fodder for their predictions, including Moderator Jesse Ormandroyd, who,

shortly after Philo’s centennial, compared the Philo of his day to the Society of the past. He cited

a Librarian's statement from 1826 that indicated that five hundred essays had been submitted by

members that year for an internal publication, and further stated that by 1828, every member was

contributing papers. He demanded that Philo live up to its possibilities, and further its individual

and collective knowledge, urging the membership to participate in the same way it had a century

ago, despite the manifold changes in the Society.

Not all Philomatheans, of course, saw evidence of regression. In 1920, Moderator John F.

Lewis, Jr. wrote in Old Philo, “We are far from dead. Although old Joe Coates said at the

banquet that in his day ('68) the great cry was that Philo was degenerating, and although old

birds of '16 and '17 get that off now, we say that we're giving a lot for our descendants to

37

degenerate from.” He went on to cite the numerous accomplishments of his administration,

which, although different from the prolific written contributions of the previous century, were

impressive nonetheless. The period from Philo's Centennial through the mid-twenties has been

called the "Golden Age" of Philo, and was not equaled until the 1950s. By the late 1920s,

however, Philo found it difficult to maintain its past efforts, holding fewer events and often

opting for social occasions over more intellectually oriented activities. One member in 1926

found the existence of the Society justified by a Christmas party, one debate, and one “hobo

night” held the previous semester on the grounds that these few activities had helped to “solidify

our spirits.”

At least spirit was not lacking, evinced by the peppy football rally that was held in

February of 1927. Similarly, bored and eager for entertainment, the society would occasionally

attempt "beheadings" on the floor of the meeting room. These were mock executions staged with

a bronze sword remaining from the Greek Play of 1886, the culmination of a mock trial that had

convicted accused party of a supposed infraction against the "traditions" of the Society.

The prominent influence of literary societies in American college life was rapidly fading.

Underscoring this fact was an October, 1913, letter from the Philomathean Literary Society of

Ohio State University, which proposed the formation of a national organization of literary

societies in an effort to protect the remaining organizations from collapse. Nothing came of this

proposal and by the end of the following decade there existed a few potential members for such a

national confederation. The liberal arts tradition of American college undergraduate education

was becoming subservient to specialized, vocationally oriented curricula, and remained in this

state for three decades. This trend was particularly evident at Penn, where business, technical, and scientific educations were favored over the humanities. During this nadir, the Society would

decline sharply from its active, prominent role, damaged by the decreased interest in pure

learning and the activities of a literary society. In spite of this, however, Philo survived as an

innovating force in the life of the University.

1928-1943

The relatively complacent position of the Society within the University was rudely

shattered in the fall of 1927. The University, desperate for space, cast its possessive eyes on the

fourth floor of College Hall. With an appeal to the long-standing agreement between the Society

38

and the University and Philo's long record of service, Dr. Josiah Penniman, the Provost and

former Moderator, requested Philomatheans and Zelosophians to vacate their home. Although a

lawyer alumnus volunteered to fight the move, the Society bowed to the request. In turn, the

University formally recognized the Society's right to its traditional quarters and promised to

return Philo to its home upon the completion of additional facilities. In the interim, the Society

was granted the use of one, and later two, rooms in Houston Hall for the purposes of continuing

its functions.

This move was a strong blow to the Society. Subject to orders of the Director of Houston

Hall, the Society could not conduct many of the activities that had made membership such a

rewarding experience and had so enriched University life. Even the regular meetings of the

Society had to be postponed and rescheduled. One initiation had to take place in the Christian

Association Building as a result of the shut-down of Houston Hall on a special occasion.

Meetings held in Houston Hall had to comply with the closing time of 11:30 P.M, which

seriously impeded Philomathean life as general meetings often went past midnight. This curfew

was regularly appealed to Provost Penniman and the Houston Hall Director, Paul Hartenstein,

but the appeal was just as regularly denied.

Records remaining of Philomathean activities during the years 1928-1943 are

correspondingly unimpressive. The dramatic extravaganzas, the outstanding debates, and the

lecture programs that had once characterized Philomathean life had shriveled to virtual

nonexistence. Membership dropped drastically from the highs of the immediate post-Centennial

years, wherein competition was fierce for the few available slots. Nevertheless, despite all that

happened, Philomatheans occasionally held a meeting in which the discussions were as inspired,

sharp, and worldly as in the best years of the Society. The status of the Philomathean residence

has always been inextricably linked it its success as an organization, for when Philo has had

unobstructed use of its halls it has flourished, but when as with the relocation to Houston Hall

and the eventual expulsion from even these temporary quarters, the status of the Philo’s home

has been in question or in flux, the Society suffers.

University Setting

Penn, which has never maintained as ample an endowment as its Ivy League brethren,

was hit hard by the Depression. The disinterest which is responsible for this lack of endowment

39

and support Penn might be explained by a number of factors. While fortunate in being able to

share in the cultural resources and entertainment facilities available in historic and cosmopolitan

Philadelphia, the amorphous University community was unable to lead a distinctive, cohesive

life of its own and thus unable to nurture the loyalty that the alumni of other institutions felt

toward their colleges. The loyalty that did develop flourished through the fraternity system or

respect for powerful Penn football squads and thus, when alumni were inclined to make

donations, the proceeds were directed at these smaller organizations within the University.

Further, the deteriorating character of the neighborhoods surrounding the campus deterred many

alumni from sending their children to the University, exacerbating the weakness of the

undergraduate body and starving the University for quality candidates, tuition receipts, and

wealthier parents. Penn could still command alumni respect for its outstanding law and medical

schools, but the scenery, social prestige, and even scholarship of some of Penn’s rivals siphoned

off from the undergraduate division many of those students whose families had long constituted

the supportive establishment. Names well planted in American history such as Biddle and

Cadwalader yielded in Philo to the names of the children of aspiring newcomers to the shores of

America. These shifts in the composition of the student body and in the mood of the times had

their effect on the tenor of Philo. Members were more interested in trimming expenditures and

lowering dues, abandoning former activities in favor of cutting loose socially. Hence, during this

period, Philo’s position within the University remained uncertain. Something of an anomaly or

an anachronism on the nation level, Philo lacked a clear model on which to base its actions and

was simultaneously drawn by a desire to maintain its intellectual foundations and, conversely,

become “closer akin to a fraternity,” following the trend toward an increasingly dominant social

life that had characterized the depression years a Penn. This tension was only exacerbated by the

internal campaign to secure a private home for the Society, which would have almost certainly

ensure that it would have become a purely social organization, hardly different from the rest of

the Greek system.

At the University, concerted efforts were aimed at enabling students to work in order to

offset tuition expenses, but a survey of such opportunities in the fall of 1931 uncovered a mere

sixty-two campus openings. This policy, while not particularly helpful, was more progressive

than the measures taken by other universities. Notre Dame, for example, forbade the attendance

of any student desiring term employment.

40

Events in Europe also began to catch the attention of America in general and Penn in

particular. For example, even before the outbreak of violence in Europe, Penn began to receive

refugees fleeing the persecution of the Third Reich. Threatened because of his religion and

socialist politics, Dr. Hans Neisser arrived in the United States in 1933 and joined the Wharton

School as an expert on monetary theory, becoming the first Jew to receive tenure at the

University. This said, however, sentiment at Penn reflected the isolationism of the nation. A

broad poll undertaken in October, 1939, found that 24 per cent of Penn students had declared

their refusal to bear arms if called upon to fight, 52.5 percent of the student body would have

barred the lend-lease program, and only 42 percent endorsed the national leadership of President

Roosevelt. A poll as late as the spring of 1941 found 69 percent of the students opposed to

American ships conveying supplies to the Allies, though these opinions would be reversed in

December of that year.

Activities

During the depression, the Society was a gradually became a ghost of its former self,

taking on fewer endeavors that could rival the productions of the previous decade. The loss of

Philo’s adequately spaced, traditional home in College Hall only exacerbated the decline induced

by the depression. The verbal agreement the Society had made with the University that had

preserved the right of the Society to return to the "garrett" was still theoretically in effect, but the

University remained desperate for space. Within the Society, restless and frustrated members

returned to the idea of buying a house for Society use. For a time, a waffle shop near campus

caught the fancy of members, though, as it would have cost the Society upwards of $25,000,

nothing came of such fantasies. Nevertheless, the indignity of having the Houston Hall janitor

flick off the lights during meetings invited members to concoct such dreamlike wishes.

Despite these problems, in 1931 Philo managed to enter its production of Eugene

O’Neil’s In the Zone into a campus competition, though the Philo tradition of elaborate and

involved dramatic productions had ended even before the Depression. This evident and

ubiquitous lack of funding only served to solidify the trend toward minor, simple undertakings.

In 1932 the Society joined the Intercollegiate Dramatic Society with the inaugural production of

An Incident. Philo managed to stage presentations again in 1934 and 1937, but these did not

attain the status of the productions from the 1920s.

41

Not all areas of endeavor collapsed, however. Philo continued to sponsor student

publications, including, among others, Junto, a topical literary magazine that featured such

notable figures as six-time presidential candidate form the Socialist Party Norman Thomas and

actor Edward G. Robinson. It was the first student publication at the University that attempted to

develop a readership among the general public of Philadelphia. In this respect Junto became

modestly successful and, at one point, copies were even available for sale on local news stands.

Philo continued these efforts in Red & Blue, a literary magazine it had founded before the First

World War. Red & Blue was an enthusiastic journal which had well mirrored the mood of the

student body since its founding. By December of 1936, however, the magazine was beleaguered

and on the verge of disbanding. Philo was granted two places on its board in an attempt by the

staff to keep the journal alive. Despite these efforts, however, student interest continued to

decline and Red & Blue folded two years later. The Garrett Gazette, Philo’s internal journal and

record continued its very irregular issuance. A typical issue ran about forty typed pages,

including essays, bulletins, and Society news. While some members filled it with an abundance

of thoughtful essays of note, the Gazette usually suffered from Societal neglect.

In 1933 and 1938, Philo started and abandoned plans to publish an anniversary history. In

the final discussion in 1938, it was resolved to postpone the history and a major celebration until

the 1963 sesquicentennial. One member blasted the buck-passing and wondered if this meant the

Society would do nothing for twenty-five years.

During this period, Philomatheans expressed their concern for world events. From 1935

through 1937 the Society appears to have supported activities of a "Student Peace Society." An

early chairman of the group was a Philomathean, continuing the long history of Philomathean

leadership in University life outside of the auspices and control of Philo itself. As the menace of

European fascism became more obvious and better understood, Philo withdrew from endorsing

neutralist organizations, favoring instead a more active role for the United States. Pointing to

Mussolini's and Hitler's backing of Franco and the Falange, two members urged in December of

1937 that Philo offer a token monetary contribution to Spanish Loyalists in their defense of the

Second Republic as a gesture of moral support for democracy’s resistance of Fascism. This

however, strikes a notable discord with the general national sentiment, which would remain

determinedly neutral until 1941.

Literary Exercises throughout the dark years of the Depression continued to show sparks

42

of intelligence in an otherwise unremarkable calendar of events. A selection of topics from 1933

to 1938 indicates their broad scope, as they included such diverse subjects as Behaviorism, the

Philosophy of Spengler, Chinese Education, the works of Ibsen, Anatole France, Chopin, French

Impressionism, and Einsteinian Theories of Physics. While this selection evidences the con-

tinued prominence that literary topics enjoyed, Literary Exercises were given more frequently on

scientific topics than previously, indicating a broader shift in the society away from a purely

literary focus, expanding from the humanities to interests in different fields of inquiry and

investigation. Hence, Philo followed the University trend toward diverse study, rather than

dogmatically adhering to its strictly literary foundations. Discussion following the exercises was

generally quite lively, epitomized by the near-battle that emerged in response to the submission

of a paper on the work of Gustav Mahler in 1940.

Guests frequently appeared at the invitation of the Society, contributing to the intellectual

discourse in the Society and adding to the knowledge and learning of the members. The many

discussions led by faculty members provided an invaluable opportunity for contact and

association with outstanding members of various departments. The following examples will give

some idea of the men and ideas addressed to Philomatheans:

Dr. E. Sculley Bradley President Lincoln Dr. Domenico Vittorini Pyronbella

Dr. William N. Loucks Economic Stability

Similarly, senior members occasionally returned to the Society and delivered orations on

subjects of diverse nature. These topics, however serious, did not preclude occasional creative

embellishments or touches of humor. In such instance, in a 1931 discussion following a lit-ex on

the plight of American farmers, one member proposed an elaborate “solution” for persistently

low crop prices, namely, a government organized, crippling drought that would devastate yields

and, consequently, drive up prices. Another member, stridently opposed to this course of action

called it impractical and urged members not to be deluded by the persuasive tongue of the

proponent.

Even in its somewhat diminished state, Philo’s example and heritage remained

sufficiently inspiring to motivate women students to attempt to form a female analog to

Philomathean Society. The idea was first presented in 1934, but no further word was heard until

43

November of 1937, when several students from the College for Women requested a copy of the

Philomathean constitution as a model. The attempt, however, was never fully realized and no

such organization was ever formed.

Decline

By 1940, the number of Philomatheans had fallen to the extent that the Society briefly

considered a merger with the Ergo Philosophical Society to increase membership. Congress’s

declaration of war in 1941 accelerated the drain on membership, bringing chaos to the Society.

Continual loss of members to the armed forces created an instability which made long-range

projects impossible and weakened institutional memory of traditions and practices. Under these

circumstances, informal discussions with faculty members were the only feasible activity. The

meetings, now open to the public, continued to be held on Friday nights and regularly attracted

about twenty-five students from outside of the Society, but this participation was tangential at

best. Nevertheless, as the war dragged on, membership losses became critical. Fearing the

imminent dissolution of the Society, Moderator Jerome Mittelman, in the summer of 1943

deposited its precious archives in the University Library. Shortly thereafter, the United States

Navy, which had established a wartime officer training and education program on campus,

annexed Houston Hall, including the Society’s Library and record collection, destroying or

discarding much of the Society’s possessions. The now-displaced Society was rendered nomadic,

which it remained until the 1950s, nomadic, wandering without a fixed residence.

Rebirth

The University of Pennsylvania, like all institutions of higher learning in the United

States, was deluged from 1945 until the early 1950s by an influx of World War II veterans who

returned to finish their interrupted educations or to initiate them by taking advantage of

government assistance in the form of the G.I. Bill. Most schools, including Penn, were ill

equipped to accommodate this drastic rise in student enrollments during this period. Class sizes

grew and lectures were held in every conceivable space, from basements and attics to old houses

adjacent to the campus that the University had acquired for this purpose.

These veterans generally came from less privileged backgrounds than the students of

prewar generations, and tended to be older, more mature, and more dedicated to the pursuit of

44

their education than their predecessors. They were not particularly inclined to the precedents and

traditions of prewar student life nor its procedural manifestations which were often regarded as

undemocratic or unnecessary. Many were already married, or married while in college. They

rushed to make up for the lost war years of their lives, but carried with them a wonderful

enthusiasm for knowledge and culture.

Student activities were affected as deeply by this phenomenon as all other segments of

University life. Houston Hall, the student union, became largely devoted to dining facilities and

public meeting rooms for recently founded or revived student organizations as campus life

reawakened from the period of inactivity during the War. Activities formerly housed there and

elsewhere were homeless or shifted from place to place. Competition for reserving the few

meeting rooms was intense. Many prewar activities were revived, but changed in form if not

substance.

The Philomathean Society also felt the effects of this change in the University. Philo had

declined to the lowest point in its history during World War II. Most faculty members at the time

heard nothing about the Society and had assumed its demise, though the Society still existed,

albeit on the verge of extinction. It was a tribute to the idea behind Philo: a forum where ideas

encountered in and out of class could be developed and discussed in an intellectually rigorous,

yet socially informal atmosphere that the Society once more rose from the doldrums. The

individual most responsible for the rebirth was John Patton, a war veteran, who, along with

several other veterans worked to revive Philo. In a recent letter to the Society he explained the

reasons for his actions and the actual process:

“As a native Philadelphian, I was generally interested in restoring some of the old

University traditions which had died during the War. I think that the idea of reviving Philo came

to me after I had noticed a large brass plate bearing the Society's name on one of the doors on the

third floor of Houston Hall. This plate currently is fastened to the door of the Society's meeting

room. I made inquiries at the office...and was surprised to learn that the Society was defunct. I

felt the need of some kind of ‘cultural’ society on campus. The Veterans Club, of which I was

president, had quite different interests, needless to say. Therefore, I set out to learn more about it

and to see whether I might recruit other students to the cause of reorganizing the Society.”

“In the course of my researches on the subject, I came across the Society's books and

records in the campus library. I was the only one at the time who perused these and learned about

45

the history and traditions of Philo...It was I who passed on to the others whatever knowledge

they had of the Society. My determination then, seconded by the others, was to reconstitute Philo

as nearly as possible to what it had been in the past, but trying to make it more ‘democratic’ in

the process, even to the extent of admitting women for the first time. Since we had absolutely no

place of our own in which to keep anything belonging to the Society (we had to reserve a

different room in Houston Hall for each meeting), we did not avail ourselves of the minutes and

other archives materials. Lacking a Philo Hall, we really could not go very far.”

“My colleagues and I were interested in reviewing all of the Society's traditions, although

we felt that some were impractical at the time and should be held in abeyance until Philo was on

firm footing and had a home of its own. However, we did not want to be limited by tradition and

precedent. We wanted Philo to be a dynamic organization, open to all. We were rather disgusted

at the idea of white and black balls for voting on a candidate and instead voted by a show of

hands. My group and (one headed by) Hilary Putnam began spontaneously and coincidentally,

without knowledge of each other. It was only after my friends and I had formed our committee

and discussed the Society with older faculty members and were under way with our plans that we

learned about Putnam's group. As soon as I learned of their existence I approached Hilary

Putnam and told him that we would be happy to combine the two groups and include him on the

committee.”

Hilary Putnam was the last junior member on campus who had joined the Society prior to

its expulsion from Houston Hall in 1943, preserving, with some of his classmates, the continuity

of the Society. Throughout the war, he and those of his fellow members remaining at the

University met irregularly in private homes and apartments such that, when John Patton inquired

as to the status of Society with the University, it was presumed that the Society had disbanded,

though in reality it had continued to exist as a homeless and amorphous organization. They

invited faculty members to join their discussions and in general attempted to preserve whatever

they could of the Philo tradition. Formal organization was impossible, but at least the name and

idea of the Society were kept alive through the war years. Thanks to these informal meetings,

Philo can truthfully claim one hundred-fifty years of unbroken existence.

Patton tracked down Theodore Bonn, Philo class of 1943, who was to act as the liaison

between the Administration and the Philo. Upon Bonn's recommendation, Patton's group was

officially recognized by the University and merged with Putnam’s circle. Other alumni,

46

especially E. Sculley Bradley, Robert Spiller and John F. Lewis, Jr., rendered invaluable

assistance in providing continuity between the old Philo and its revived, postwar incarnation. Dr.

Albert Harbage, Philo's faculty advisor, resumed his former position. The first official post-war

Philo meeting was held on May 29, 1947, and was attended by nineteen people, including Patton,

Putnam and Bonn. An executive reorganization committee corresponding to the former cabinet

was elected with Patton as Moderator and Putnam as Second Censor. It was agreed that

applicants for membership should submit papers and, at some time in the future, give an address

before the Society.

This meeting of May 29 was the last time minutes were to be taken until fall of 1949, and

no roll of the members was kept regularly until the fall of 1953. These lapses are fair indications

of the great discrepancy between Society’s less traditional practices of this period and that of

previous period, evincing the differences in membership and the undergraduate population.

Meetings were held in the afternoon as well as in the evening on any day of the week, and

business meetings usually took only half an hour, as opposed to the night-long affairs that

meetings had been in the pre-War era. Society activities were largely aimed at bringing faculty

members into touch with the students, and virtually all meetings were open to the general student

body. The old tradition of literary exercises went by the wayside, deemed too formal for the

postwar context. Similarly, from the spring of 1948 to June, 1952, each member received a

membership card instead of the traditional Latin membership certificate. Hence, Philo

maintained the flexibility that had allowed it to survive during the pre-War period, adapting, in

its re-organized form, to fit the needs of the immediate post-War generation of undergraduates,

who chafed under formal procedures and the strictures of tradition.

The most fundamental change introduced during this period, however, was not the shift

away from formal structure, but rather the admittance of women. Letters from the Moderator at

that time appeared on October 21, 1948, in the Daily Pennsylvanian, and in the Pennsylvania

News, the women's weekly student newspaper, and complained of the adverse editorial

comments which the change had provoked. One editorial had been headlined "Philo Hits

Bottom/Admits Women!" This move was not uncontested within the Society and, for several

years after the decision, all Society correspondence bearing women's signatures was initialed

rather than signed to avoid alienating the more conservative alumni who might have balked that

Philo’s decision. Moreover, even as long afterwards as April, 1950, the meeting minutes hint at

47

fines imposed on members who refused to speak to their female counterparts, indicating that

latent sexism still pervaded the society, in spite of official policy. That said, however, Philo was

markedly more progressive than Penn as an undergraduate institution, which did not integrate

men and women on the until 1974, more than twenty-five years after Philo had rejected such

prejudices.

Despite the organizational changes and the limitations of physical facilities, meetings in the

early fall of 1947 consistently attracted forty to forty-five students. The success of these

meetings and those of the next two years may be attributed to the favorable response of the

student body to the Society's policy, as expressed by John Patton: “We were willing to sponsor

anything that would liven up the cultural atmosphere on campus.” One set of lectures inspired a

change in the University curriculum, when, at the behest of its membership, Philo petitioned the

University for the introduction of the study of comparative literature. When the University

refused to take action, the Society responded by offering a series of lectures in comparative

literature by members of the respective language departments. The unusually heavy attendance

of these lectures convinced many professors of the demand for this study among the student

population. The Society's plea was reexamined and a department of Comparative Literature was

finally instituted as one of the first interdisciplinary undergraduate departments at Penn.

The spring semester's efforts were devoted largely to attempts at founding a new literary

magazine. In 1948, the Society had helped to publish a magazine named Trend, which

unfortunately lapsed after two issues. Convinced of its inability to publish on its own, the Society

turned to the general student body. In support of the endeavor the Society organized a lecture

series on contemporary literature. Finally, in the spring of 1951, Philo founded the Pennsylvania

Literary Review. The PLR's objective was to present the best literary efforts of the University's

undergraduates. The magazine listed as its "Founding Fathers" three former Moderators,

including John Patton, who had stayed at Penn for his graduate studies and retained a Special

membership in Philo. The Pennsylvania Literary Review continued under Philo control for over

ten years, until the magazine eventually folded.

In the spring of 1951, Dr. Robert Spiller became the Society's sponsor, replacing Dr.

Harbage, who had left for Harvard. The Society showed renewed vigor with the delivery of a

fully fledged inaugural address by the incoming Moderator, and with the reinstitution of the

requirement that candidates for membership deliver a speech before the members of the Society.

48

But there were also complaints that meetings were too infrequent and not interesting enough, that

the procedure was too formal and that only two members had paid their dues. On May 17, new

officers were elected, but the posts of Second Censor, Recorder and Librarian were left vacant.

During this entire period, the only committees mentioned were the membership or reading

committee, and an occasional banquet committee, as the need arose. There is no record whether

the Cabinet met regularly, or at all.

The next two years were a constant battle between Philo's continued existence and its

impending extinction. A series of proposals aimed at raising the Society to its former glory was

introduced each meeting by Charles F. Ludwig, a sophomore admitted to membership May 17,

1951. In October, his motion to reinstitute the Annual Banquet passed, followed by his

suggestion that December to create a Philo lapel pin, which was also adopted. In January, also at

his suggestion, a Recorder and Librarian were appointed from the junior membership. On

December 6, 1951, Ludwig delivered a six page report of proposals for revitalizing Philo which

went into every phase of Society activity. Eventually, every one of his suggestions was followed,

but at the time, a great deal of opposition arose. The greatest point of contention was the revival

of old and formal traditions. Members who were accustomed to the post-War Philo could see

little benefit in reviving such practices as having the Moderator and Censors preside over the

meetings in academic robes or keeping handwritten ledgers of meeting minutes. Ludwig saw in

Philo the underpinnings for the stability of the Society and he noted that the periods when Philo

attained its finest achievements were times when its traditions were most observed. In the next

few years, his insistence on maintaining tradition almost split the Society in half, but in the end,

his unflagging campaign prevailed. Ludwig’s analysis, however, is flawed it falsely ascribes

Philo’s success to its adherence to tradition. Philo, even when innovative, has been successful,

and this success has more to do with Philo’s status within the University, particularly with regard

to popularity, respect, and having a secure place to meet, rather than simply following the

traditions of previous generations.

In October, 1951, a series of lectures on religion was planned, but abandoned in February

because of an inability to obtain speakers. In January, a Philo night at Hedgerow Theater was

scheduled to raise money for the Society. Sartre's No Exit was to be seen, but membership

support was so poor and community response so unenthusiastic that the theater was practically

empty. Members refused to return unsold tickets they had promised to sell and Philo yet again

49

entered the fall semester with a deficit.

The 1951-1952 academic year had its bleak moments, but it also had moments of

promise. In December, Ludwig announced that he had removed the Philo archives from the

University Library and secured the contents in two closets he had obtained for the Society in

Houston Hall. Ludwig purchased a new Recorder's Roll for the Society, into which he wrote the

available names of the membership since World War II. From this point, the Recorder's Roll was

kept as continuously as it had been from 1813 to 1939, with every member signing his name in it

upon his initiation. The old initiation ceremony was reinstituted in February at Ludwig's

insistence and a new precedent was set when Irene Block was elected the first woman

Moderator. But despite the potential of this year, the spring semester ended on the most

depressing level since the War. Minutes were taken more infrequently and the membership

became apathetic. Finally, at the last meeting of the term, Ludwig was elected Moderator by the

handful of remaining members. Only the offices of Moderator, Censors and Treasurer were

filled. The others remained vacant, either because they were not needed or because there were

not enough members to fill them. Apparently, the University atmosphere was not conducive to

intellectual organizations, as student interest seems to have flagged during this period.

Newly-elected and eager to renovate the Society, Ludwig spent the summer examining

the Philo’s archives and came back in the fall with a better idea of what he wanted to

accomplish. Beginning in the fall of 1952, Philo began to follow some of its traditions more

assiduously. Minutes were kept consistently and members regularly delivered Literary Exercises.

For the first time since the War, Philo to be merely a discussion group and lecture platform for

faculty and began to assume its former role as an outlet for original intellectual efforts and a

forum for constructive criticism. Superficially, the minutes of this time resembled those of the

twenties, but they lack mention of any external activities, indicating that the Society had not fully

returned to its position of prominence.

During this same period, the Society continually pressed the Administration for new

quarters in accordance with the verbal agreement made at the time of Philo’s expulsion from

College Hall. At the time, Philo had to share a room in Houston Hall with twelve other student

groups. The Society did not even have a desk of its own, though it did have exclusive use of two

closets in which to keep its invaluable archives and its small but growing library. Until Philo

installed new locks on the doors, even this meager home was not safe from vandalism and

50

several precious objects were stolen. Efforts to obtain adequate quarters drained much of the

Society's energy until 1956, when sufficient space was finally procured. Ludwig was reelected

Moderator in the spring semester, and again for the fall of 1953 when he was a graduate student.

This required a special constitutional dispensation, and is the only time in the Society's history

that a graduate student has served as Moderator.

In the spring of 1953, Philo reinstituted its tradition of bestowing an annual award to the

champion debating team in the Philadelphia public high school league. Further, Philo revived the

tradition of awarding diplomas to its graduating members at the end of the semester. With the

revival of this tradition, all the official documents of membership were once again in use. The

majority of Society effort in the fall of 1953 was directed toward increasing membership. Philo

conducted a vigorous campaign and nineteen new members were initiated, bringing the total

membership to twenty-five and away from the brink of extinction. The Society revived many of

its practices that had lapsed during the war, beginning with a series of lectures on the origins of

the Cold War, which featured professors from the University and other area colleges. Internal

activity consisted mostly of debates and papers on topics of current interest.

Philomathean Neil Willing was elected President of the Governing Board of University

Student Assembly in the fall of 1953. The University Student Assembly occupied the efforts of a

number of leading Philo members during this period, reflecting Philo’s general rebirth after its

near dissolution during the Second World War. Further, it is interesting to note that, even in its

attenuated state, Philo maintained a preeminent position within the University, including the

University Student Assembly. During the this same period, Philomathean Alan M. Ruben

conceived the idea of establishing at Penn an institution similar to the English Oxford Union.

The proposed organization was to debate the political issues of the day in the manner of a

legislative to body. It was not be a student government with jurisdiction over campus affairs, but

rather an organ for discussion and finding innovative solutions. Approximately twelve leading

student activities were asked officially to sponsor the Undergraduate Student Assembly and to

constitute its Governing Board by sending one representative from each organization. A

constitution was drafted after a year of discussions with members of the Department of Political

Science. It established a legislative branch with representation based on participation of the three

political clubs at that time: Young Democrats, Young Republicans, and Young Progressives. The

Governing Board served as the executive branch to care for administrative details. On October

51

26, 1951, Philo voted to be a sponsor, and appointed Ludwig its representative to the Governing

Board. The Society ratified the Undergraduate Student Assembly constitution in March, 1952.

Each political party offered a platform and slate of candidates for the House. Seating of the

parties was by proportional representation based on campus election results. Almost thirteen

hundred students voted at the polling booths set up across the campus on Election Day. The first

meeting of the House was held in late spring of 1952. Probably because of the coincidence of the

American presidential election, USA met with overwhelming student support in its first year.

In 1953, however, extreme internal dissent among the three political parties resulted in

secession and eventual disorganization. Upon dissolution, USA's documents were deposited in

the University Archives with instructions that whoever tried to establish a similar organization

should have free access to them.

In the spring semester of 1954, Ludwig declined the Moderator's chair and was instead

elected First Censor. This started an unwritten custom in the Society that the Moderator be first

elected in the spring semester, and invariably reelected for the following fall. Because the

Moderator is usually a low senior in his second term of office, he is thereby available for one

more semester before graduation to assist the new Moderator in learning his duties. This custom

has contributed to the stability of the Society by preserving a degree of institutional memory in

the legacy of the Moderator. Moreover, the former Moderator often serves as First Censor in the

spring of his senior year, such that he can further ensure the continuity of the Society by

educating the incoming class of new members in the traditions and culture of Philo.

On February 12, 1954, Ludwig delivered his farewell address after having served as

Moderator for a year and a half. He himself best summarized the achievements of his

administration and his conception of the Society's future course in the following words:

“My Fellow Philomatheans: Tonight, for the first time since prewar days, a Moderator of

the Philomathean Society has garbed himself in the traditional academic robes worn by the

officers of Philo. This marks the end of one era and the beginning of another.”

“A year and a half ago, I offered a program of four points, plus a fifth, supplementary to

the others. The goals were: 1. Increased membership; 2. Library and rooms; 3.Programs by and

for the membership by means of the Literary Exercises; 4. Creative, constructive criticism; and

5. Service to the University. Four-fifths of this program has been fulfilled or is well on its way to

fruition.”

52

“The membership has increased in size and quality and should reach the traditional limit

of fifty members by next year. The members are all working and contributing to the continual

progress of Philo, both in administration, and more important, in the creative efforts

characteristic of this organization. The Literary Exercises have been fully revived and restored

and have once more assumed the dominant part they have played in the Society. This has been

accompanied by a change in the mental outlook of Philo members from one of cynicism,

sarcasm, and destruction to one of creative construction. The Society's library has been revived

and steps have and will be taken to make it become of greater value to the members, and more a

part of their reading habits.”

“I made service to the University merely a supplementary item in my program because I

felt that Philo had to be restored and buttressed from within before it could have that reserve of

time, energy, finances, and spirit necessary to carry a program of activity to the entire campus.

Yet, we have fared so well with the internal rebirth of Philo that we have already been able to

begin a wide series of programs for the rest of the student body. The Biennnial Lecture Series

has already been revived and begun this year. The Annual Oration is also being revived, and the

Annual Oratorical Contest which we administer for the General Alumni Society will soon be

held. We have resumed interest in the Philadelphia High School Debating League, which we

founded in 1917, offering the Philomathean Debate Trophy once more for competition. A Philo

magazine or some other sort of publication will, I hope, Goon be read by the faculty and student

body of this University.”

“The past year and a half has therefore brought an enormous change in the character of

Philo. When I first joined the Society, there were few meetings, no Literary Exercises, no

certificates of election, membership, or the Philomathean diploma. There were no collected

archives and curios, no membership drives or annual receptions, no gold keys, lapel pins,

committees, or much form of organization. It is clear that Philo has been restored in the face of

overwhelming odds.”

“But now the Society has reached a turning point. An enormous amount of time had to

be spent during my administration in occupations of necessity, in building, block upon block,

and in consolidating these advances. The greater part of these functions of necessity have been

completed. The cap and gown which I now wear are symbolic of this metamorphosis. From the

coveralls of administration, the Society now has the responsibility more than ever of donning the

53

academic robes symbolizing intellectual creativity and in pursuing the stated goal in its

Constitution, ‘To improve the learning of its members’.”

“Philo must be as wise in this as in its building stage. The Society has understood the

function of history, that the present is the living past, that the past is inseparable from the present,

and that the progressive philosophy of Anglo-American institutions and society is the continual

looking to the future, but always with a gradual continuity, evolving out of the past; a tradition

that form is necessary to channel effort into useful endeavor, but should not become an end in

itself. This Philo must continue to be. It must preserve its basic institutions, characteristics, and

traditions while looking to a broad new horizon of intellectual activity. It must restore itself as

the intellectual center of student life at Penn, and as a leading coordinator and arbiter of extra-

curricular activity. To do this involves a number of things. It does not mean putting on airs of

intellectual artiness, snobbery, or conceit, or in meddling in the affairs of other organizations. It

does require an energetic and humble membership, not fearful or too lazy to undertake large

programs and projects, whose execution would require work not only benefitting the Society and

the student body, but the individual members in many ways of an intangible nature.”

"The first and most important single factor which will decide whether this new era shall

continue to be one of progress is the finding of a permanent, suitable, commodious home for the

Society. Philo shall retrograde if it must continue to live out of a desk and two closets. It is the

essence of Philo that it exist in a place where not only its members, but those students and

faculty so desiring may meet on a common ground in a dignified atmosphere at any time for the

informal exchange of ideas and for intellectual fellowship. The Friday night meetings should not

be the sole occasion for the gathering of the Society, but rather should be the culmination of a

full week of the exchange of ideas, when the Society itself reaches its peak in formal debate and

discussion.”

“Accompanying the rooms, the Society should publish a good magazine, once again

produce plays, and bring eminent authorities in all fields to the campus. Philo should try to

cooperate with the other activities on campus in coordinating them into a fabric of unity to

replace the excessive competition which now exists in fields of essentially similar intellectual

aims.”

By the fall of 1954, only the absence of adequate quarters kept the Society from attaining

its former status and enjoying the stability that accommodations provide. Initially, most efforst

54

were concentrated primarily on reclaiming the Society's old facilities on the fourth floor of

College Hall rather than obtaining a new space. In anticipation of finally being granted its

request, Philo appointed committees to investigate what support, if any, its alumni would provide

in furnishing the new quarters once they were secured.

After lengthy negotiations between Ludwig and the University Space Committee, Philo

was granted sole use of a room on the fourth floor of Hare Building in the spring of 1955. The

Hare Building had recently been vacated by the Wharton School of Commerce and Finance,

which had moved into its new home in Dietrich Hall, the first major new building erected at

Penn since World War II. The grant of the space in the Hare building was accepted as a

temporary measure until a final home for the Society could be secured. Despite the vacancies

created by the construction of Dietrich Hall, space was still critically scarce in all parts of the

University.

Henry Steele Commager delivered the Annual Oration that year. These lectures continued

into the fall semester aria were jointly published by Philo and the Pennsylvania Literary Review

in 1956. Every copy was sold on the first day of distribution. This lecture series and its

successors were not only important to Philo, but also to Penn. Numerous lectures were given on

campus in the post-War years. The University commenced an annual Franklin Lecture Series

featuring prominent non-faculty speakers. Student apathy in the early 1950s, however, resulted

in such small audiences that the Franklin Lectures were suspended. By 1955, no campus

organization sponsored major lectures because of the fear of inevitable failure. Moderator Albert

Fishlow, however, fervently believed that non-classroom lectures were a vital part of the

intellectual life that a great university should provide. Disturbed by this apparent deficiency, he

proposed that Philo sponsor two major lecture series each year. The fall would feature faculty

members from Penn, while by contrast the spring would present well-known scholars and public

figures from other parts of the country. Each highly publicized series would focus on a theme of

widespread interest in order to attract the broadest possible audience. All speakers would confer

in advance on the areas to be covered in their addresses. The Society acted on Fishlow's

suggestion, and the exceptionally well attended Cultural Heritage series emerged as a result. It

was the success of this initiative that ultimately led the University to reinstitute the Franklin

lectures and encouraged other student organizations to attempt series of their own. This, then, is

an exemplary instance of Philo’s leadership within the University, in that, despite its relatively

55

Lilliputian size and recent tribulations, it successfully addressed a deficiency in the University

program, precipitating a response from the administration, acting as a foil that reveals, by way of

contrast, the flaws of the University.

Penn Pics, the beleaguered and insipid campus humor magazine, was banned in the

spring of l955 because of its salacious content. The editors were unable to obtain funds for a new

magazine, and for a while it appeared that the University would be without a satiric publication.

In an effort to prevent this, Albert Fishlow, acting on behalf of the Society, approached the

editors and the Administration, offering Philo's support for a new humor magazine, as the now

defunct Penn Pics was the successor of the Philomathean Punch Bowl. A new magazine,

Highball was founded as a result and was first published in the fall of 1955. During its first year

of publication, a Society representative held a seat on Highball's editorial board, but following its

established practice, the Society withdrew from the board in the spring when it felt that the

magazine could continue on its own. A mere three years after its founding, however, Highball,

too, was banned for salaciousness.

Besides publishing the Cultural Heritage lectures, the Society also sponsored several

luncheon concerts and one major lecturer, Owen Lattimore, in the spring of 1956. Lattimore, the

distinguished but controversial expert on Asia, had been violently attacked by United States

Senator Joseph McCarthy in one of his demagogical diatribes against alleged communists and

conspirators. Guards were hired to protect the University Museum Auditorium from threatened

picketing and troublemaking. None of the expected difficulties materialized, and Lattimore

delivered the Annual Oration for 1956, “Asia Ten Years after The War” before an orderly and

overflowing audience.

On January 13, 1956, Albert Fishlow was nominated by Charles F. Ludwig for the

position of Censor Emeritus and was elected unanimously, excepting his own abstention. As

stated in the minutes, Mr. Fishlow felt that “Mr. Ludwig was the only person the Society has had

who deserved the honor of a unanimous vote....” and so he abstained as a matter of humility and

a gesture of respect. The Fishlow administration hastened the return of Philo to its status as a

major influence in undergraduate affairs at Penn. Sponsorship of Highball and in particular, its

presentation of the annual lecture series which it later published demonstrated that the Society

had the resources to extend itself beyond its own meetings and once more engage in important

campus activities in a manner that it had not been able to in years prior.

56

Despite this almost miraculous resuscitation, the Society never regained the “absolute

dominance in student life” that it had shared with Zelo in their Golden Age. It seems, perhaps,

that in addition to having been overcome by the organizations that it spawned it suffered from a

lack of direction. Thus, part of the issue in the revival of Philo is that the Society has no distinct

central purpose; it is not defined by its role in publishing a newspaper or operating a radio

station. Rather, Philo has always been defined by the desires of its members and its purposefully

vague mandate to promote learning. This ephemeral and ambiguous purpose has, in times of

indecision or tension, created a distinct lack of direction and mission. Further, Philo is often

plagued by its own success in that as groups splinter from Philo to run publications or dramatic

productions independent of Philo, the Society’s purpose becomes increasingly confusing and

esoteric as other groups begin to fill gaps in the University that Philo had once occupied.

Philo’s relevance to the University was diminished not only by its unfortunate

interregnum, but also by the changing demographics of the University and the declining interest

in the activities of literary societies. Put glibly, when Philo was established, its members

comprised the entirety of the graduating class, whereas in the middle of the twentieth century, its

fifty members represent only a small fraction of the few thousand students that comprise the

undergraduate body of Penn. Consequently, then, Philo is unable, especially when coupled with

its own internal problems, to have as integral a role in undergraduate life as it had in generations

prior. Additionally, perhaps the failure of the Zelosophic Society to revive itself for more than a

brief period after the Second World War contributed to Philo’s inability to occupy the space in

University activities that it once had. Organizations of this type are often improved by the

presence of a competitor, whose collegial rivalry serves to create drama, tension, and

competition which only enhance the experience of their members and the services they provide

to the University. This qualification, however, should not be construed as an indictment or

criticism of the accomplishments of the Society since its reorganization, but rather an

explanation of the changing dynamic of its position within the University.

Continuity

The new Philomathean Hall was opened on Friday, October 5, 1956, in celebration of the

Society's one hundred and forty-third anniversary. In the late afternoon, senior and junior

Philomatheans, members of the faculty, and University officers filled the Franklin Room of

57

Houston Hall for dedication ceremonies. Alumni were enlisted to send letters to the University

commending the idea. The Society of the Alumni of The College passed a resolution of support.

Philo alumnus Earl G. Harrison, a Penn Trustee, requested Ludwig to prepare a memorandum

which he brought to the attention of the Trustees' committee on student affairs. Another alumnus,

Philip Price, prepared a legal opinion that the Philomathean corporate charter was still in effect.

Ludwig filed an application with the Federal Bureau of Internal Revenue to have the

Philomathean Corporation declared a tax exempt, charitable, and educational institution so that

contributions to it would be deemed charitable deductions behalf of the donor. The application

was approved in 1955. Most importantly, alumni Dr. E. Sculley Bradley, George F. Kearney and

John F. Lewis, Jr. became devoted to the project. Ludwig had early contacted Kearney whose

sagacious advice, ebullient spirit in spite of setbacks, and ever readiness to listen were vital.

Bradley's contribution is best set forth in his own account of the munificent cooperation of the

University administration:

“I happened to be Vice-Provost, charged with undergraduate affairs of academic

significance, and Mr. Ludwig very properly brought the problem to me. Space was desperately

short just then, but Provost Rhoads was sympathetic. We easily enlisted the sympathy of George

Turner, then the Engineering officer charged with space, but his task was tough. The final road

block was the expense of preparing the space - clearing, erecting new partitions, painting, etc. to

the tune of nearly $3,000. When I took the matter to President Harnwell, with the encouragement

of Provost Rhoads and Mr. Turner, the Dean of the College, then Lloyd W. Daly supported us

with enthusiasm. Dr. Harnwell then accepted our view toward Philo's cultural significance and

authorized expenditures to be made from his presidential emergency, fund a very tight budget at

any time.”

John F. Lewis Jr. chaired an alumni fund raising committee for the furnishing of the new

quarters, and was ably assisted by Pearce M. Gabell, who acted as Treasurer for the effort. Lewis

raised five thousand dollars from the Society's alumni for the purpose of assuring that the

Philomathean Halls would be as resplendent as they had been before Philo had been expelled

from College Hall. This sum was stretched to cover an estimated ten thousand dollars of

furnishings and appointments, designed by Ludwig and a committee of junior members who

planned and supervised the renovations.

An old oak paneled platform obtained from the Law School was redesigned and placed

58

upon a platform to serve as the dais for the Moderator and Censors. An abandoned chess table

and fine, old book cases were repaired and refinished. A new wall seat and an asbestos lined

archives cabinet were constructed and installed. The floors were carpeted, and the memorabilia

of the Society were hung on the walls. The famous cast of the Rosetta Stone and its case were

carefully removed from the wall of the third floor room in Houston Hall used by Philo before

World War II and hung in the new meeting room as a reminder of Philo’s past achievements.

The Hon. Jasper Yates Brinton, Philo Class of 1898, framed and presented two steel

engravings by Giuseppe Vasi. One of them, "View of Rome-1765" is among the largest steel

engravings in the world, nine feet long and four and a half feet high. Albert Bendiner presented

one of his own prints in memory of his brother, a former Philo. The undergraduate members

purchased high fidelity record playing equipment and established a record collection to

complement the book collections donated by alumni to the library. A large number of persons in

the audience braved the four flights of stairs of the Hare Building for refreshments and informal

discussion with Viereck lasting several hours.

An official ribbon cutting ceremony followed at the entrance of the quarters. The

celebrants entered a handsomely furnished suite composed of a large meeting room, a library,

and storage and cloak room on the fourth floor of Hare Building. These facilities were created

out of two classrooms, a section of hallway, and the room granted to Philo during the previous

year. After a banquet in Houston Hall, Vice Provost Roy F. Nichols, an honorary Philo, donned

his academic robes and delivered an address in Ballantine Auditorium of Dietrich Hall. His

remarks were titled, “The Mind You Find May Be Your Own,” and were subsequently published

in The General Magazine and Historical Chronicle of the University.

The dedication of the new Philomathean Hall culminated four years of negotiations led

by Charles F. Ludwig to secure permanent quarters for the Society. Though Ludwig had

originally campaigned to reinstall Philo in its ancestral home atop College Hall, this had proven

impossible because of a set of prohibitions imposed by the Philadelphia Fire Marshall. Despite

such disheartening obstacles, the Society continued to plea for the space and to seek the support

needed to give Philo a home. Using a design found in the 1917 minute book, Ludwig presented a

Philomathean flag to the Society at the dedication. He also announced that the University had

promised Philo the balance of the rooms along the fourth floor corridor of Hare Building within

the next two years, and he proposed that the Society establish an art gallery on behalf of the

59

University when the additional space would be received.

With the move into its new quarters in 1956, the Society returned to the plateau from

which it had fallen in 1928. Throughout the post-war period, ambitious plans had been curtailed

or abandoned because of a lack of adequate space. As far back as 1947, the reorganizers were

unable to reinstitute all of the traditions because the physical limitations that they faced. During

the early Fifties, the absence of a central, unifying force to bind the scattered membership almost

brought about Philo's complete disruption. The process of rebuilding was closely linked to the

gradual improvement in the Society's physical accommodations. As first a closet, then a desk,

then a room were obtained, programs became more varied and of larger scope, growing

incrementally with Philo’s increase capacities. Hence, the Society did not attempt a full range of

activities until a setting for them was assured. With permanent quarters, personal contact among

the membership increased and deepened as members had a permanent location in which to

interact. A member going up to the quarters to study or to pass a few quiet minutes was sure to

find another Philo already there and would, naturally, benefit from the pleasant company and

conversation. Members who previously had not known each other could get acquainted and a

spirit of greater camaraderie and friendship developed. With an adequate home, Philo could once

more become as valuable to its members and the University as it had been before.

The 1962-1963 academic year brought a major development to the University and Philo.

In a room adjoining its quarters, the Society opened the first permanent University art gallery on

February 25, 1963, with a collection of Japanese prints donated by the Gallery's first Director,

Jack Gillmar. Additionally, professor of Philosophy Nelson Goodman donated a collection of

American prints to the Philomathean Gallery to improve the collection. The highlight of the

1963-1964 exhibitions was a show of prints by the French lithographer Honoré Daumier. The

1964-1965 season began with an exhibit of etchings by Francisco Goya on loan from the

Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Roten Gallery in Baltimore. After the inaugural show

exhibits were changed almost monthly. The permanent collection began to grow by donation and

soon, an art rental program was established whereby a student could rent a picture for a semester

for a nominal charge which went into a fund directed toward the acquisition of additional pieces

of art. Further, Philo catered the space to student use and planned exhibits of student work which

offered the sale of art to students at prices scaled to the student purse, including installment

plans. Yet again, Philo recast itself to fulfill a need among the undergraduate population.

60

By this point, the Society's library had been reestablished and numbered several thousand

volumes. In addition to the numerous current magazines received, there were back issues of

many periodicals including a complete file of the American Scholar donated by former faculty

advisor Otto Albrecht, and a set of Punch dating back with occasional gaps to the eighteen

forties. New acquisitions were selected each semester by the members and purchased with their

dues. Many volumes were added when the Administration gave the Society the remains of the

Zelosophic Society's library which had been discovered by accident in a closet in College Hall.

Among the numerous alumni gifts was the Cadwalader Collection on World War I, whose

addition in 1963 increased the library holdings to the point where the shelves became inadequate

to house the collections. Upon petition of the Society, two rooms along the Hare Building

corridor leading to the quarters were added to Philomathean Hall in 1960. This was a partial

fulfillment by the University of its promise eventually to transfer all of the space along the

corridor to the Society. The small room on one side of the hall was immediately furnished as an

office much needed by the officers and committees.

At this juncture, Philo felt the need to involve itself more directly and actively in student

political life. Undergraduate affairs during this period tended to be dominated by organizations

whose principal purposes were either social or athletic. As a result the Society felt that there was

insufficient representation in student government for musical groups, theatre troupes, literary

publications, and other organizations whose purposes, like its own, were intellectual or creative.

Despite its efforts, however, numerous attempts to form an Arts Council with Philo at its head

had collapses without success.

The 1959-1960 academic year featured a lecture series by faculty members William

Fontaine, Paul Schrecker, Landon Burns, Philip Lockhart, George Gadding, and Elizabeth

Flower. Dr. Paul Schrecker, famous historian of Philosophy, had been approached by some

Philomatheans to initiate a course in the Philosophy of Science. As a result, the Society officially

petitioned the University for the establishment of such a course of study. Eventually, the petition

was accepted and Dr. Schrecker taught the course in the Philosophy Department. This, then,

resonates with the events a few years before in which, though urgent petitions and the

establishment of its own lecture series, Philo succeeded urging the University to establish

courses that it had erstwhile lacked. It seems then, given this pattern, that one of the

manifestation of Philo, in addition to publishing house and debate squad, is that of the academic

61

vanguard, ensuring that the University maintain a high standard of education and meet the needs

of the Student body, often by meeting that need itself and forcing the University to respond.

Philomathean Hall proved to be an ideal setting for informal seminars was increasingly

used for this purpose and for smaller lecture programs. Even the Literary Exercises of a general

meeting in December of 1959, became a public event when many students and faculty filled the

meeting room benches and even sat on the floor to hear Professor Louis Kahn discuss the

philosophy behind his design for the prize-winning Alfred Newton Richards Medical Research

Building erected at Penn, thus involving the University in its affairs and fostering an intellectual

discourse that, without the Society, would not have had an opportunity to emerge.

After the Society had regained its stability and was no longer in imminent threat of

dissolving, Philo’s traditional interest in dramatics reappeared. During Ludwig's administration,

dramatic readings became increasingly popular and a few were delivered publicly. For several

years a standing committee arranged two dramatic readings a year. In 1959, the Society

presented Albert Camus's The Misunderstanding for two successive evenings under the direction

of Professor Robert K. Bishop. The success and reception of this play encouraged some members

to institutionalize their interest in modern drama. To this end, they founded the Drama Guild in

cooperation with some external assistance and, on May 13, 14, and 15 of 1960, presented Samuel

Beckett's Endgame, as directed by Dr. Gerald Weales. The Drama Guild became officially

independent of Philo the following year. Establishment of the Drama Guild was in part a reaction

to the productions of the Pennsylvania Players, which at the time were considered insufficiently

representative of contemporary theater, favoring more traditional material. As a result of the

challenge, however, the Pennsylvania Players endeavored to improve the quality of their

productions. Ironically enough, in this instance Philo had established a rival to an organization

that it had itself founded. Philo thus not only contributed an additional student theatre

organization to the University community, but also impelled the Pennsylvania Players to adapt.

One of the most obvious signs that Philo had returned to health was the apparent

dullness and regularity of the minutes books which revealed a steady routine of Literary

Exercises and lecture series, but no breathtaking struggle to preserve the Society and its

traditions. For example, the year 1956-1957 saw the successful presentation under the direction

of Moderator John Schrecker of a second major lecture series, “Asia in Perspective.” The

lecturers were experts in the field of international relations and Asian studies. The following

62

programs were sponsored:

The Interchange of East and West. Schuyler Cammann China: Old Society and New Forces Derk Bodde Indian National Ideals Today (The American View) W. Norman Brown Japan: A Tragedy of Western Impact F. Hilary Conroy Asia and the West in the New Era Norman D. Palmer

Eventually, in 1959, Moderator Murray Eisenberg, with the generous financial assistance

of the Society of the Alumni of the College, led Philo in the collection and publication of these

lectures, including the previously given Lattimore lecture, despite numerous delays in obtaining

manuscripts and the refusal of one printer to publish Lattimore's speech.

The extraordinary cooperation of the Society's alumni in obtaining and furnishing

Philomathean Hall inspired such gratitude in the junior membership that they sought to maintain

their connections with the alumni who had been so supportive and reach out to the rest of the

senior members. In the spring of 1957, the Constitution of the Society was amended to establish

an Alumni Advisory Committee composed of prominent alumni and the current Moderator. The

Committee met for the first time in December, 1957 and decided that they body should serve as

an advisor to the Moderator and his Cabinet in an effort to stabilize the Society and preserve

many of its tradition in an effort to prevent such declines as had occurred in the past.

It is at this point that Charles F. Ludwig's direct influence ends, as he had completed his

legal education at the University and, as such, was no longer a voting member of the Society.

More than any other man in the post-War era, he was responsible for preserving Philo and

restoring it to a position of prominence. During the years 1951 to 1957, he changed Philo from a

small, disorganized and dispassionate group into an active organization, housed in its own

spacious quarters, and recognized by the faculty, Administration, and alumni as the true

successor to the old Philo in both name and spirit. Building on the foundation left by the Patton

group and Hilary Putnam, he framed the organization and revived the traditions which, even after

reorganization, had been forgotten. To remember his legacy, in 1962 the Society introduced the

Charles F. Ludwig Award, “presented at the end of each academic year to the non-cabinet junior

member who has most furthered the Society's purposes.”

The Sesquicentennial Year

63

Under the leadership of Moderators Peter Rona and Jack Gillmar, Philo's

sesquicentennial year of 1963-1964 was by far the most active in the post-war period. Rona and

Gillmar exemplified the current status of the Society within the University as campus leaders,

involved in many aspects of student life beyond the Society itself. Both Moderators, for example,

were among eight students to have their pictures and accomplishments printed as indicative of

the achievements of Penn students in a booklet distributed to alumni in an effort to solicit

donations. Moreover, each was appointed to several boards and advisory committees of the

University Administration as well as of the student body, mirroring Philo’s own active role in

Undergraduate affairs.

Similarly, the Society's celebration of its Sesquicentennial and assured survival from the

peril that had faced it during the last years of the Second World War coincided with the tenth

anniversary of Dr. Gaylord Probasco Harnwell’s administration of the University. The

University had, in a manner parallel to the Society, witnessed in the previous decade a

renaissance and restoration to the forefront of American universities after having been relegated

to the status of a relatively second-tier, somewhat backwater institution during the Great

Depression and Second World War, having fallen from its place as the educator of the

Pennsylvania elite. In response to Penn’s regained stature and in an effort to ensure that it would

retain such prominence in the future, a seventy million dollar building program was completed

and another one hundred million dollar project was planned. With these expansions, the

University would no longer be subject to the limitations that had forced Philo from its home

decades before. Further, as the University reinvested in its facilities, it began to attract

increasingly qualified and capable classes of students and began to attract professors from some

of the nation’s finest Universities, rather than have them leave Penn for offers elsewhere in the

academic world. Moreover, the humanities and the College of Liberal Arts were revitalized as

the core of undergraduate education, stabilizing the trend toward professionalism that had

characterized previous years.

This transformation of the University as a whole buttressed and augmented the progress

of the Philomathean Society during the same decade. The cooperation and assistance of the

expanded faculty and improved Administration were invaluable in rebuilding Philo and

executing its plans, especially when Society desires coincided with administrative aspirations.

October 2, l963, one hundred and fifty years after it had been founded, Society was again in a

64

state of unquestioned health, evident in the schedule of programs that the membership organized

during the anniversary year. For example, in commemoration of Shakespeare's 400th birthday,

Philo organized a Shakespeare Festival focused on a major lecture series of nationally known

Shakespearean Scholars, including Ralph M. Sargent, Fredson Bowers, Maurice Charney, and

Maynard Mack. Further, as a continuation of the Shakespeare Festival, in February of 1964 Philo

presented the Haverford-Bryn Mawr players' production of Hamlet to a capacity audience in

Irvine Auditorium. Both the lecture series and the play were overwhelming successes as a result

of the efforts of Philomathean Wayne Rebhorn, the Festival's originator and organizer. Further,

these efforts would have been impossible only a few years earlier, as the society did not have the

resources, the stability, the membership, or the confidence to manage such an undertaking.

The sesquicentennial year also witnessed the establishment of a new Philomathean

publication, Era, the Society's new biannual scholarly and literary magazine. The first issue,

under the editorship of Daniel Alkon, contained four articles by prominent members of the

University faulty: Roy F. Nichols, Alexander V. Riasanovsky, Robert E. Spiller, and Adolf D.

Klarmann. Subsequent issues included student writings as well as faculty contributions on a

variety of subjects. Similarly, painstaking research by Recorders Miriam Kotzin and Judith

Seplowitz led to a compilation of alumni and their addresses and the publication of alumni

newsletter informing senior members of current Society activities. Thereafter, at least one such

newsletter a year was to be published, providing steady, direct contact between Philo past and

Philo present for the first time in the Society's history, continuing the close relationship between

Senior and Junior members that had characterized the reorganization period. In breaking with its

own tradition, the Society stated its intention to maintain Era and the Art Gallery under its own

auspices rather than relinquishing control of them to the general student body after a sufficient

gestation period. This intention is interesting as it reflects Societal acknowledgement of the fact

that, until this point, it had been gradually writing itself out of University life, allowing groups to

splinter off and fill roles that had initially been filled by Philo, thereby obviating the need for the

Society to engage in that activity.

The Society's budgets also reflected its expanded activity and the expansion of the

University as a whole. By the sesquicentennial year, the Student Government allocated the

Society nearly eighteen hundred dollars, a sum that contrasted quite starkly with the relatively

paltry one hundred dollar appropriations of the early fifties. This renewed financial endowment

65

not only indicated the rejuvenation of the University and the esteem of the Society within the

institution, but also allowed Philo to take on additional projects and better serve the general

student population. As such, Philo sought to produce an enhanced lecture series, selecting for its

Annual Orator philosopher Henry Aiken, who spoke on “Intellectual Honesty and Religious

Commitment.” Similarly, in an effort to diversify the topics of its lecture series, the society

invited Dr. Ludwig Gross, winner of the Pasteur Silver Medal and the World Health

Organization Prize to deliver an address titled “Is Cancer Caused by a Virus?,” which was

reported in the Philadelphia newspapers and given before a capacity audience, evincing Philo’s

success in casting itself beyond the Humanities.

These efforts did not go unnoticed by the community. On March 1, 1964, the

Philadelphia Evening Bulletin devoted a feature article and picture to the Society in its Sunday

edition, reporting the recent programs undertaken and upcoming events that the Society was to

offer. The Winter 1964 issue of From College Hall, a newsletter sent by the University to the

parents of all undergraduates, contained a full page article on Philo titled “A Call To Arms:

‘Raise hell With Your Brains’” lauding the society in its projects. Although this publication is

certainly not rigorous in any journalistic way, it is indicative of the Society’s esteem that the

University chose to highlight Philo in a pamphlet designed to placate parents and encourage

them to donate money by touting its recent successes. Moreover, in his April 1964 letter to Penn

alumni, Walter P. Miller, Jr., President of the General Alumni Society referred to the “raise hell

with your brains” slogan as being characteristic of Penn’s vibrant approach to intellectual

endeavors, again employing Philo as an exemplar of the possibilities of undergraduate life.

Similarly, the Pennsylvania Gazette, the magazine of The General Alumni Society, devoted six

pages of articles and pictures to Philo in its March, 1964 issue. In the span of just a few years,

then, Philo transformed itself from the relative obscurity of the early fifties into a venerable

campus institution, commanding the respect of the administration and local publications.

The University maintained a number of authors in residence during the year and Philo

entertained each in its quarters for a talk with members and the general public. These guests

included Archibald MacLeish, Elizabeth Janeway and Philip Roth. The Irish critic, Dennis

Donoghue, spoke on “Three Directions in Modern American Poetry” at a Society lecture open to

the University community. As a result of these talks and the other events that the Society

arranged, Philo received the Friar's Senior Society's Activity Award, presented to the campus

66

organization that showed “overall excellence and significant contribution to the University”

during the academic year.

A gala Sesquicentennial Banquet was held at the Barclay Hotel on Friday night, October 2,

1964, the exact date and day of the week that Philo was founded one hundred and fifty years

before. Under the guidance of Leonard P. Dill, Jr., Vice-President of Alumni Affairs, the General

Alumni Society sponsored the banquet, and created special Alumni Awards of Merit. These

awards were normally given only at Penn's Founder's Day exercise, but the Alumni made an

exception in this instance. Walter P. Miller, Jr., President of The General Alumni Society

Presented the awards at the banquet to three Philo alumni, Dr. E. Sculley Bradley, former vice-

Provost of the University and preeminent Walt Whitman scholar, Charles C. Parlin, learned

member of the Bar and President of the World Council of Churches, and C. Canby Balderston,

former Dean of the Wharton School and Vice-Chairman of the Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve, thus honoring their contributions to the University and their respective

professions. Moderator Neil Jokelson presided as a hundred and thirty alumni from across the

country and officials of the University gathered to honor the occasion. John F. Lewis, Jr. was

Chairman of the banquet committee and delivered an opening address. Charles F. Ludwig

announced plans for an expanded Philomathean Hall, a full cultural center to include a meeting

room, library, music room, experimental theater, art gallery, and editorial offices for Era in space

to be provided by the University.

Pulitzer Prize winning historian and Vice-Provost Roy F. Nichols delivered the principal

address, entitled “A Century and a Half of Intellectual Competition.” In his 1956 speech, “The

Mind You May Find to be Your Own,” Dr. Nichols spoke of Philomathean in the following

terms, “The University of Pennsylvania over its long history has been striving in countless ways

to define and reach its objectives, and Philomathean has been one of its instruments... The

University of Pennsylvania and Philomathean have been primarily concerned with the problem

of aiding youth to achieve as early and as completely as possible the great goal of self-

realization... The whole program of Philomathean as it was conceived by its founders and as it

was developed in certain periods of its existence depended upon the formulation, the expression,

and communication of ideas, concepts, and product of man's own creation. These college men of

the early nineteenth century, whether consciously or not, felt that their classroom experience left

something to be desired. And so eager were they to have that which was left undone, that they

67

were willing to devote their spare time to attempting to secure it… They met not to play

football, not to have bull sessions, not to roam the streets of the town, but to express ideas, to

debate, to present ideas in essays and orations, and to hear the ideas of each other. They found

that this program of formulation and communication gave them a sense of great satisfaction, of

recreation, not from aimless play or idleness, but coming from the exercise of their own creative

facilities which in turn enabled their own capabilities, and thus to gain a sense of status, a greater

sense of security. This they did by learning the potential of their own personalities as creating

and communicating individuals. In other words, they progressed along the road toward knowing

themselves.”

“The fact that this was done after hours, extra-curricularly, meant that they were using their

minds not as professionals but as amateurs. They were not learning just law or medicine or

theology. These exercises were not consciously designed so much to increase their professional

capacity, as to develop amateur intellectual sportsmanship. That they and their successors have

found this form of adventure through their association after hours satisfying, the longevity of the

Society and the adult interest of so many indicate. More important is the fact that many of those

who participated in this activity found in it a constant challenge, and looking over the role of

those who have been members of this society, it is quite obvious that many continued these

creative interests, continued the search throughout their lives."

In this way, Philomatheans have asserted their motto, sic itur ad astra, “Thus we climb to

the stars” and on threshold of its next fifty years, the Society can justifiably look back over its

first one hundred and fifty with pride. It has continually changed along with Penn, while

maintaining the spirit which created it and always remained its guiding force. Born out of its

founders' need to understand their world, each other, and themselves, Philo continued to serve

that purpose consistently throughout its existence, allowing generations of students to enrich

their educations outside of the structure of the University. Philo has manifested itself differently

throughout its history, molded by the needs and desires of its membership, occupying whatever

vacancies existed in their intellectual lives. In this way then, the Society remains fundamentally

unchanged one hundred and fifty years after its founding, despite the differences evident between

the present society and that of the past.

68

Conclusion and Apology

An inherent problem in attempting to produce a synthetic analysis or guiding narrative

from Philo’s history is that, since its inception, Philo has always been something of a chameleon,

shifting its role and aspect in order to fulfill its admittedly ambiguous mandate and meet the

needs of its members. Philo’s flexibility is one of the features most responsible for its longevity,

allowing it to facilitate the intellectual desires and curiosities of the members. This composition

stands in contradistinction with the organization of most other student groups, where, despite

changes in membership, the group still produces the same final product as it has in the past.

Hence, Philo exists for its members in a way that most other student groups do not. Further, as

opposed to the case of other student groups, Philo’s achievements are always double-edged in

that, in most instances where one of Philo’s endeavors has succeeded, the section of the Society

responsible secedes in order to take on that project on its own. The history of the Society

furnishes several such instances, namely the separation from Philo of the University Magazine,

the Pennsylvania Players, and the Mask and Wig Club. This pattern, while perhaps beneficial to

the University, is detrimental to Philo, as its lack of explicit purpose becomes increasingly

apparent with each schism, making Philo’s course irregular and disjointed. These facts, coupled

with the fact that its membership is completely renovated every four years, mean that any

attempt to devise an authoritatively cohesive historical system falls short, as Philo’s past is

kaleidoscopic and mercurial.

Given these limitations, it is best to understand the history of the Society during this

period as one characterized primarily by its role as a foil to the University. A somewhat crude,

but nonetheless apt, analogy describing the relationship of Philo to the University might be that

of a small business to its competitor. Ultimately, of course, both groups are influenced by and

subject to the same external forces, evident in Philo’s mirroring of the University’s decline and

resurgence, but within the relative context of their shared framework, Philo has acted generally

as an upstart competitor. That is, when Philo noticed an absence in the service that the University

provided, it acted to fill this role itself, forcing the University, by virtue of competition, to fill

this role itself or sanction the creation of another student group whose purpose directly addresses

the need. Philo’s history is filled with such examples, such as the institution of a Comparative

Literature series to match the University’s failure to institute such a course. There are problems

with this analogy to be certain, namely that most enterprises do not occasionally petition their

69

competitors to reform themselves so as to preempt the need for action, but, generally speaking,

the analogy stands. Alternatively, one might characterize Philo as a whistle-blower, exposing

flaws or deficiencies in the University system and installing stop-gap measures until the

institution can respond effectively and rectify the problem. In either case and in whatever

incarnation, it is apparent that Philo has played an important role in the history of Penn, serving

as an innovative force in a large institution and offering a space in which to experiment on small

scale before implementing a policy or program across the entire University.

A Discussion of Sources

This work, as it is largely informed and based upon source material that does not readily

lend itself to citation, lacks formal footnotes or endnotes. Instead, I have included this postscript

to discuss the materials relevant to the construction and verification of such a history. Of course,

for anyone interested in the history of the Philomathean Society, The History of the

Philomathean Society, 1813-1913. This work clearly and succinctly lays out the first century of

the Society’s life and is invaluable as a secondary source; it is available in the Philomathean

Archive, the University Archive and Records Center, and as a free PDF from Google Books.

Ironically, the copy digitized by Google was the property of the University of California Library

System, not the University of Pennsylvania.

In terms of primary source material, the most ample repository is the Philomathean

archives in the Halls of the Philomathean Society, on the fourth floor of College Hall. To this

end, it is expedient to enumerate and explain some of the principle types of sources available in

this archive and their relevance to this composition. The most apparent such group of documents

is the collected Minute Books of the Society. These volumes, which have varied over time from

enormous leather-bound tomes to more modest specimens, contain the minutes of the meetings

of the Society as recorded by the Scriba and formally accepted by a motion of the Society at the

opening of the next general meeting as a matter of procedure. By custom, they generally reflect

the start and end time of the meeting, as well as the date, the pertinent motions accepted and

rejected, the topic of Literary Exercise of the evening, and any relevant debates or miscellany

throughout the meeting. Hence, they are invaluable in understanding not only the events as

matters of parliamentary procedure essential to the functioning of the Society, but also the

personality of Philo at the time, evident in the editorial commentary of the Scriba. Moreover, on

70

a larger historical level, they reflect the general health of the Society, for during periods of

intense distress, as with the extended nomadic phase of Philomathean history, the practice of

keeping minutes is generally one of the first practices to suffer, especially as the Scriba is often

chosen on his merits as a scamp, rather than his ability to keep an accurate record of the

happenings of the Society. Further, as accurate and complete records are often seen by

contemporaries something of a luxury, especially when the existence of the Society is in

jeopardy, they remain a crude, but effective indication of Society health.

These books are housed in the Philomathean Archives and the volumes relevant for the

time period in question extend from Volume One, which begins on October 2nd, 1813 and ends

March 12th, 1817 through Volume Eighteen which ends in February of 1964. There Society

continues to keeps regular minutes into the present, all of which are available in the Society’s

archives, excepting, of course, the present volume, which resides in the Scriba’s desk. For the

purposes of this history, however, the volume ending in 1964 is the last pertinent portion of the

minutes. It is important to note that, as mentioned above, the minutes from the end of Volume

Sixteen in November 15, 1940 through the Dark Ages of Philo until the reorganization of the

Society in 1953 are sporadic. Additionally, the numbering of the Minute Books is my own and

does not reflect any coherent archival mechanism employed by the Society. Those interested

should consult the inventory of the Philomathean Archive and then check the first date given in

the corresponding volume. There are minutes as early in the post war period as 1947, but these

are not as regular or formal as those of other periods in Society life. Similarly, the Literary

Exercise books and Roll books offer similar evidence of Society Life, though the last apparent

“Literary Exercise Book” ends in May of 1881 and while the Roll Books have continued

throughout the present day, they reflect the same tendency toward chaos that the Minute Books

do during periods of confusion in Philo History, which only serves to exacerbate the uncertainty.

During the early period of this history, moreover, the issues of University Magazine and The

Pennsylvanian often provide an accurate and regular record of the Philomathean meetings and

events, if only in a general way.

Another group of sources, especially invaluable when discussing Philomathean dramatic

productions and the woes that ensued are the Treasurer’s Books and associated loose documents,

including checkbooks, budgets, and other financial records. The most interesting volume for this

period is the one covering the Period from May 28, 1913 through October of 1919. There are, of

71

course, other volumes, especially in the period preceding this volume, but this volume helps to

corroborate a good portion of the Philomathean misadventures with money, including the

unmitigated debacle surrounding The Masque of the American Drama, which nearly crippled the

Society. These documents are interesting not only in discussing Philo’s occasional flirtations

with calamity, but also examining the Scope of the Society and its relative prestige and clout

within the University, evident in the budgetary allotment from student government and its dues

from members which indicate both the relative value of the Society and govern the ability of the

Society to engage in various activities, relative to its financial capacity.

There are, of course, more specific records of particular aspects of the Society as well. For

example, with respect the aforementioned Philomathean dramatic productions, the Philomathean

archives had an extensive collection of documents pertaining to the plays of the early twentieth

century, especially from 1904 through 1921. These documents include a report entitled, “Record

of Plays given by Philo from 1904 – 1914,” several handbills of various plays, correspondence,

bills, and accounts of the plays from the years after 1914, and, most interestingly, an undated

agreement of several cast members to underwrite personally any deficit that the production might

incur. This agreement probably pertains to a year between 1913 and 1920, most likely the year

1917, in which the Society produced The Masque of American Drama and thus this decision no

doubt proved to be disastrous, though, it was probably the only way to secure the financial

resources to produce the play at all.

In the same way, there is a small collection of records specifically relevant to the debating

portion of the Philomathean Society. Hence, there is an entire file-folder devoted to the recording

of the debates between the Philomathean and Zelosophic societies, as well as delegations from

other colleges and universities. There is also a collection of correspondence pertaining to the

Philomathean Interscholastic Debate League of Philadelphia founded by the Society in 1917

which lasted until the Second World War. These materials not only provide evidence of the

existence and extent of Philomathean debating, but also information as to the content of said

debates. The subject of such debates provides the basis for inferences about trends in Society and

University opinion.

Further, there are collected copies of Philomathean publications stored in the archives. The

presence or absence of these publications is in and of itself a bellwether of Societal health, but

they also serve as sources in and of themselves. It would be overly cumbersome to enumerate

72

every such publication, but a few important examples are The Philomathean, a weekly bulletin

collected from October 14, 1914 through January 8, 1915, The Garret Gazette, an internal

publication, later bound into five volumes from October 29, 1919 through May 27, 1932, and

copies Era beginning in 1964. Along similarly lines, there is a compilation of the complete text

of the Annual and Biannual orations delivered before Philo from 1825 through 1962, giving

another indication of Society activity as well as a measure of its health throughout the period in

question.

Finally, the History Committee of 1964 and the Alumni Relations Committee of 1988

produced, mailed, and received completed Alumni questionnaires, as well as correspondence

with particular members as part of their duties. These records, especially the reflections by senior

members as to their impressions of the Society are valuable in charting the change of the Society,

particularly with respect to its significance to its own members. These questionnaires, responses,

correspondence, and associated documents are collected in several boxes generally marked

“Alumni/Membership” housed in the Philomathean Archives. Additionally, there are audio

recordings of several interviews conducted during the 1990-1991 oral history project for those

interested.

This bibliographic note by no means constitutes an exhaustive list of all the documents

available on the subject of the Philomathean Society. It is, rather, an indication the sources that

verify and corroborate the above history, serving as a substitution for a more formal citation

style, given the somewhat chaotic nature of the documents and archives in question. For those

interested in a more complete registry of the documents of the Philomathean Society, please

consult the inventory of the Philomathean Archives, which is an updated and relatively accurate

assessment of the items in the possession of the Society.